Zo Kwe Zo

Celebrating Marriage

2011-11-30T10:33:00.001-08:00

To celebrate my husband's birthday and the more than 11 years we've had together, I give you a fun little video of romance and marriage, from our friends Down Under:

How not to come out to your parents

2011-10-01T21:30:00.001-07:00

I'm a sucker for coming-out stories, and the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was underscored with moving videos of coming-out stories. Most viral among them is a video by Airman Randy Phillips coming out over the phone to his father (and again later to his mother). Good thing they each reacted reasonably well, as it was on display for 4 million and counting of Randy's closest followers on his YouTube channel AreYouSurprised:

Randy is a good-looking and empathetic guy, but perhaps his poor parents deserved to hear this news in person, and in private. It's easy to forget that it's not always only just about us.

Are Mormons like planets?

2011-10-01T21:00:00.000-07:00

Mormon virtues are usually listed as thrift, industry, duty, self-reliance, risk aversion, pursuit of prosperity, and respect for authority. Detractors will often list these very same traits using less flattering words. I think this list misses the mark and describes many non-Mormons as well, such as myself. What then is the distinguishing feature of Mormon culture?

Perhaps Mormons are like a planet, moving as one in a larger revolution while remembering to generously and dutifully rotate to give all longitudes their chance to view the central sun, yet all the while aware that any more chaotic rotation to extend this warmth to the colder latitudes could destabilize the common orbit, trigger a collision, and reduce the cohesive whole to a sea of scattered lifeless asteroids. At some point, the good of the many means that a few arctic dwellers must resign themselves to making do with less. That is what planets do.

I too might not have disdained life on a planet, had I only the good sense to have been born at the equator. Instead, I lead the life of a comet. My path may be either elliptic or hyperbolic (I do not know), but I am willing to adjust my course with each passing encounter. And though currently enjoying my momentary basking in reflected warmth, I am destined to shoot out again soon on my cold and lonely path. That is what comets do.

Still, so long as planets and comets manage not to collide, the solar system is richer for having them both as members.

Haiku-tainment for the Prose-Weary

2010-11-08T18:12:00.000-08:00

For those who value form over substance, I offer up for public ridicule some haiku musings of mine, reprinted (and slightly edited) from here.

On gay marriage:

Kekkon wa
Obama ni yoreba
Okama dame

As for marriage ways,
According to Obama
No way for the gays.

Lawrence v. Texas
Souter gone, will we lose all?
Soyomayor says…

On Mormon missionaries:

Mormons in haiku
demonstrate free agency,
pass the Turing test

Missionaries rap
Book of Mormon in haiku
Old wine in new skins.

LDS haiku,
yet not a one containing,
“And it came to pass…”

On McNaughton's painting One Nation Under God:

Token black complies
Clarence Thomas in disguise?
Reality belies…

Blacks still in the rear
Satan whispers in gay's ear
Such do WASPs hold dear

Franklin clutching chest
Justice cannot watch the rest
Lying at its best.

Jesus now reveals:
Constitution, not Bible,
Is the Word of God.

Boy is so confused:
“Church and State shall not be fused”
Jesus not amused

The Second Coming
Jesus judges living, dead
Who will make the cut?

Painting shows the way
Pseudohagiography
sells better than truth.

No haiku attempt is complete without literary criticism. Here is my response to one who did not care for the use of rhyming in the above haiku:

Critics I address,
To some rhyming I confess
Cease with your distress

To those who contend
“Rhyming haiku sense offend!”
Let me now defend

As one who adores
Rhyme which haiku underscores
How the purist roars!

Give your rules a rest
Grating rhyme is rhythm's zest
Fusion food tastes best.

Wisdom in five feet?
Even coffins are longer.
There ain't no free lunch!

Like one thousand cranes
Haiku speaks not of what is,
but to what should be

It gets better, really!

2010-10-14T19:23:00.000-07:00

Joel Burns, currently on the Fort Worth TX City Council, was moved by the recent epidemic of gay teen suicide, to make his own video (and personal testimonial) for Dan Savage's It Gets Better project, encouraging gay teens to stick it out until, as it did for me, it does get better.

If you have not yet seen it, please watch it in its entirety (not quite 13 minutes, but if you must, you can skip to 4:20 for his personal story).

Joel Burns' story is also my story. What he so compellingly and tearfully recounts happened to me twice, once in my sophomore year of high school, and again in my sophomore year of college. Here too, as Joel did, I apologize that close friends and family are hearing this story for the first time. Some things are best said in public.

I was harrassed regularly before and after P.E. class, in ninth grade and especially in tenth. One of my teachers was an unsympathetic ex-Marine, the other a very unsympathetic coach who ironically had an openly gay son of his own. Both coaches were well flirted with by the girls, and neither seemed to mind this at all. I was physically assaulted (punching and shoving) maybe a dozen times or more, in and out of the locker room, a place of special dread I learned to avoid so assiduously that one girl remarked how my swimsuit stank. In fact, I was afraid to change out of it after swim class and it would mildew tucked safely in my book locker when I changed privately in a campus bathroom stall.

I was fired on by a boy at the top of our street using a pellet gun while I was walking home, and the pellet lodged in my knee. My mother stormed up there and banged on the door, threatening to return with the cops. I had never seen her so mad. Another time, while walking home, a thuglet from the high school football team stopped me, called me a fag, and punched me in the face. Or tried to, anyway. I raised my right forearm (to this day, I wish I had used the left instead!) to parry the blow, and heard a snap. My right ulna suffered a hairline fracture. I was too ashamed to tell my French teacher that my arm ached (lest she asked how it was hurt) and failed a French quiz that day. The school administration interrogated me at length seeking the identity of the assailant, but I yielded it not. The Vice-Principal and Head Guidance Counselor were both coaches on the side, and I knew deep down on where their inner loyalties lay. I did not trust them to protect me from the fallout, either further harrassment, or (far worse) total social isolation. I was not “out” to myself, much less my family, much much less to my peers, and I could not confide in anyone about this.

As it turns out, the broken arm was a golden ticket to Special Ed. P.E. Nominally for the physically disabled, it was filled with fellow misfits (read “gay” students). Long after the three weeks it took my arm to heal, I remained in this P.E. for Sexual Minorities where dear Miss Sensenbrenner (bless her soul) led us in gay-friendly sports like volleyball, swimming, softball, and non-competitive soccer while our straight brethren sweated and sweltered in the heat on the football, baseball, and basketball fields and running cross-country around the school. Miss S. and whatever other faculty members arranged this island of sanctuary for me may have saved my life, and I thank them.

In college, I lost my faith that this “phase” would ever end, and when my sister asked me point-blank if I were gay, I said No and hoped for the last time that it were true. Soon after, I confided in my closest friends and all but one was supportive. Unfortunately, that one was my closest friend and his rejection was devastating. We did not speak again for 30 years. It was ironic that he, a devout Christian, was the final catalyst in my abandonment of the myth of a benign Supreme Being, and after all who has use for a malign one?

I remain to this day a scarred optimist and devout atheist. Things did get better. I “dated” a few times (as in, I fell hopelessly in love, they never returned my call), I was Vice President of the UC Berkeley GLBA and put on their first major dance for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. I joined the Peace Corps to save the world and earned my way into a non-existent heaven with chronic diarrhea. I fell in love and “married” another man for 8 1/2 years, until he passed away leaving me even without the strength to cry. Now I am very happily married to the man of my dreams, one wonderfully overlooking of my flaws. We got to drop the quotes around the word “married” two years ago, with family present, but we refuse to reset the clock and are soon approaching our tenth anniversary. I have a great job and have been able to travel to almost 30 countries. Life is good. I wish the boy I was could see me now, he would be so proud.

I am here today because of the people in my life, the tremendous support I had growing up, an incredibly tight-knit large extended family (including one gay cousin, who was there when I needed him!) that gave me the self-esteem and strength to work through these issues and seek out help from others. Too many young gays teens today do not have this support network of family or friends, and the result is tragic and pointless.

If you feel as grateful as I am to Joel for speaking up, despite the potential backslash, about this silent pandemic, a near right-of-passage for gay teenagers, you could do worse than go to his his website at http://www.joelburns.com and click on the Get Involved! button. While you're there, consider a monetary contribution to his campaign. Even heroes need to eat.

No hierarchy of fiction

2010-09-19T00:32:00.000-07:00

Recently, a friend of mine (raised fundamentalist Evangelical) railed against the “cultist superstition of Mormons”. It was a throwaway conversation filler, and I knew I was expected to conflate my frustration over LDS opposition to same-sex marriage with ridicule for their curious beliefs, then move on to more topical gossip. Instead, I fired back with some inconvenient truths: that the contributions were from members’ non-tax-exempt contributions and not from Church tithings, that even “evil” people have First Amendment rights in this country, that I have met some really warm and friendly Mormons online, at least one of whom I consider a friend (even though we have yet to meet in person), that though Mormons are arguably almost pathologically polite, they didn’t (and don’t) strike me as particularly “evil”.

My conscience thus appeased, I went on to swear, drink, and traffic in calumny of others not present. It was, all in all, a great afternoon.

Only later did I realize that my friend had mistaken my position entirely. It is not, as she had assumed, that the sins of the group are outweighed by the virtues of the few, or the one. I hope that I do not base my philosophy (or my bigotry) on mere anecdotalism.

Simply put, there is no hierarchy of fiction. Those who believe that an angel appeared to Joseph 200 years ago are no less right — which is to say, no less wrong — than those who believe that an angel appeared to Mary 2000 years ago, or those who believe in astrology or flying teapots. A deist who ridicules a Mormon’s beliefs has truly no sense of irony. A Jew who takes comfort in millennia-old prayers has no right to religious superiority over the new-age fusion beliefs of the Buddhist-Unitarian.

Extrapolating beyond the data is akin to guessing how the dice will land, and the guess does not get less difficult by shaking them seven times instead of seventy times seven times.

For the record: the LDS Church is manifestly wrong for opposing my marriage. But more wrong is the suburbanite liberal who adores gays at her cocktail party, but not in her child’s classroom. The Mormon who voted showed more (misguided) moral conviction than the hipster too hung over to bother. Those who content themselves with an avuncular supernatural “higher power” instead of Zeus and Poseidon are just as intellectually incoherent but lack creativity. There is a weird conceit among many of the credulous left to disdain the credulity of the right. In turn, those who cling to the Book of Genesis have no shame in scoffing at Native creation myths involving Crow, Beaver, Otter, and Whale.

Here are the facts: I do not know the facts. I do not know how I know this. Faced with this uncertainty, I am guided in my beliefs by empiricism, in my actions by utilitarianism and the Golden Rule, and resist the powerful, presumably Darwinian, instinct to yearn for a life after death with the modest antedote of resigning myself to extracting the most out of this one. If I live on in others’ memories, it is enough for me. Anything more is vanity.

Then again, if pressed to choose a supreme being, I do rather like the idea of a flying teapot. It is hard to imagine people killing each other to defend the honor of a such a crock.

Taking it on the road

2010-09-14T01:37:00.000-07:00

It has been some time since I have found the time to post to this blog. I have found it just too difficult to wait until I can get back to my desktop to comment on something and still give a fresh insight.

iPhone 4 + ShapeWriter = I'm back

Now, armed with the latest iPhone and an amazing app called ShapeWriter that lets me write on the screen as fast as I can type on a keyboard. I'm taking this blog on the road, folks. Wish me luck!

Time for the Pope to Walk on Water

2010-04-03T19:54:00.000-07:00

The Rev. James Martin, S.J., a faithful Catholic and Jesuit priest, has recently written an excellent essay titled “The Church's Easter: What Needs to Die in the Catholic Church so That it May Live”, outlining the way forward for the Church from priesthood sexual abuse. In short, for the Church to live the following must die:

A prideful clerical culture of power, privilege and secrecy.
Elevating concern for a priest's reputation above that of a child's welfare.
Having more zeal in investigating dissident theologians and American Catholic sisters than in investigating abusive priests.
Paralyzing fear of the consequences of confession.

Of these excellent points that Father Martin makes, the last is I believe the most important, for without confession, repentance is insincere and atonement is impossible. Too many good men in the Church hierarchy are paralyzed with fear of making things worse, of painting with too broad a brush which might slander and demoralize good priests.

But cancer requires both acute surgery and radiation at the site of pathology and systemic chemotherapy to prevent future outbreaks. Just so, the pathology of priestly paraphilia must be excised swiftly where it is found, but the abuse will recur unless structural changes — and here I mean specifically an end to clerical celibacy — are instituted.

The past deserves from the Catholic bishops a sincere act of contrition. The future requires that the Pope himself find that same courage to make a leap of faith towards Christ that Peter made (Matthew 14:28-31) in walking on water even at the risk of drowning:

Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”
He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.
But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”
Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”

In the original Greek, the last verb doubt (διστάζω), which also means hesitate, implies that Peter's failure was not a lack of belief but rather a lack of faith: the courage to trust in and act on belief. Let us hope that the current Pontiff can find the same courage to reach out unselfconsciously towards righteousness in these troubled times. Salvation is ultimately in God's hands, but failure is fully within the power of man.

Good Friday from an ex-Catholic Perspective

2010-04-02T12:52:00.001-07:00

What does Good Friday mean to me who do not believe that Jesus was God?

I think it is useful to place Jesus' atonement within the context of his time. The Jewish requirements of atonement include repentance, confession, restitution, punishment (by God or others or else undertaken voluntarily), and absolution (Yom Kippur for venal sins, death for mortal sins).

Note that to Jews, absolution was given by God, not man. And forgiveness is not in the list: if you gave adequate restitution to your neighbor, you were done: you did not need his forgiveness. Encouraging the forgiveness of sins was a Christian departure from Jewish tradition. And forgiveness by proxy is simply not possible for Jews.

Catholics (modern ones, at least) make much of Jesus having provided restitution, tribulation, and death, allowing us to close the deal merely with repentance, confession, and penance. Absolution can be granted (through a priest) by Jesus. In fact, we up the ante: mere repentance (forward-looking: go and sin no more) should be accompanied by sincere contrition (backward-looking: I wish I hadn't done it). Without regret, repentance is insincere.

The justification of these "more than strictly necessary" measures is that they are for the benefit of the sinner's psychology, not her soul. In practice (if not in theology), unless we attempt to actually try (and fail) to walk the walk of Jesus, and not just ride free on His shoulders, we will slip back into sin and become hypocrits. That's just how humans are wired (call this Original Sin if you are inclined to view the latter as mere metaphor). Catholics are raised to believe that suffering is good for the soul.

Evangelicals are so much more fortunate to have the psychological strength not to need to personally atone for their transgressions: “forgive me Lord”, and poof! Sins are erased like writing on a whiteboard. They treat sin like a soiled shirt: just Shout It Out™!

And indeed, to the believer, both Catholic and Evangelical positions are quite close in theory (if not in practice).

But to the unbeliever (like me), there is a vast difference between the discipline of the former and the lip service of the latter. I retain my Catholic moral structure more or less intact. Actions speak louder than words, and (pace St. Paul) Jesus' example of atonement offers great meaning even to me who do not believe that Jesus was God, and even more meaning to me when I came to not believe in a god at all.

Had I been raised Evangelical, I might well have fallen very far from grace. The strength of Catholic shame does not let go so easily, and for that I am blessed.

This is my testimony: through contrition, confession, restitution, and graceful acceptance of appropriate punishment, I too receive absolution in the form of self-forgiveness and psychological cleansing. Though Jesus may not have saved my soul for all eternity, his teachings and example have helped me to save my own soul in this life. Until such time as further revelation come to me, that will have to do.

Sometimes bad cases make good law

2010-03-29T22:59:00.000-07:00

Most of you are well acquainted with the antics of professional scumbag Fred Phelps, whose mantra "God Hates Fags" now extends to anyone who dies in defense of our Constitution that defends the right of homosexuals to exist.

Now, adding insult to injury, the father of a fallen Marine, whose funeral Phelps' "church" picketed, has been ordered by the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals to pay court costs for that cockroach Phelps.

If there is a God, I am certain that Phelps will be writhing in the next life in some serious pain (of his own making) for being so loathsome in this life. But under the U.S. Constitution, it was Phelps who was wronged. His First Amendment freedom was infringed upon by a grieving father, and the most conservative Court of Appeals in the country upheld Phelps' right to speak evil.

I applaud the court for its principled stand. Freedom of speech is far too precious to deny even to a hate-filled homophobe whose own self-promoting celebrity status now makes him fair game for satirists and bloggers.

There is a well-known legal maxim that "bad cases make for bad law". No judge wants to have Fred Phelps for a poster child. But our Constitution is not a fair-weather friend, and a country that might censor a devil today would silence an angel tomorrow. Even in death, that Marine served in defense of our country and the values we hold dear, first among which is the right to speak freely. I salute both father and son for their sacrifice.

Sins of the Father

2010-03-06T16:31:00.000-08:00

The Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School in Boulder, CO recently expelled a preschooler because the child's parents are lesbians. The Archdiocese of Denver has released a statement justifying the expulsion:

“Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment.”

The pastor of the school, Father Bill, has further explained his reasoning in his blog post titled What wisdom is at work in not having children of a gay marriage in a Catholic school?. Most commenters on his site have vehemently disagreed with his position in expelling the child, and small wonder: he misstated his position and thereby generated the very controversy he was trying to avoid:

“The core issue for us Catholics on this question is our freedom and our obligation to teach about marriage and family life as our Faith teaches.”

He is mistaken. This is an expression of Protestant belief. It invites the Catholic lay reader to misconstrue the meaning of "us". I suspect what the good pastor really meant was:

The core issue for the Catholic Church on this question (or any other) is the ability of the Magisterium to understand the will of God, the presumption that God will ensure that it does, and the freedom and obligation of the clergy thus enlightened to teach to others less attuned to God's wishes, in the hope that the faithful will not fall away in a misguided and self-deluding belief that they can more reliably intuit God's teachings without a reliable intermediary.

Some commenters wondered about the Church's tolerance of divorce (at least with respect to parochial school attendance), but this is a false analogy: no parishioner thinks that divorce is an objective good. Even non-Catholics understand divorce to be a failure.

In contrast, the understanding of the morality of sexuality is evolving in American society quite rationally, with increased understanding by scientists of its etiology and the apparent lack of negative societal impact.

The "moral relativism" here is not about sexuality, but about the increasing unease by Catholics (since Vatican II) with the proposition that the clergy is credible in matters of sexuality, even as it has simultaneously failed to understand the root causes of clerical paraphilia and failed to provide an understandable narrative that harmonizes recent genetic and social science on sexuality with the teachings of the Church.

When Jesus was asked, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?”, he did not say "I am, trust me." He said (Mat 11:5-6), look around and believe what you see with your own eyes:

“The blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them. And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”

When deciding whether to trust the Catholic Church in matters of sexuality, my own eyes tell me that gays are clamoring not for the self-indulgence of "free love" but for the sacrament of marriage, that these lesbians are raising their children not as an atheist but believing in Christ, that sexuality is in fact not "ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil" but rather oriented towards a well-integrated psychological, social, and spiritual whole.

In short, my eyes tell me that Father Bill is not speaking for God on this issue. Perhaps it is time for the teacher to become the student.

Catholic ultimatum: Obey, or the poor will starve!

2009-11-12T10:33:00.000-08:00

What would Jesus do?

Jesus had no trouble interacting with prostitutes, beggars, and Samaritans. He was not an -ism sort of guy. When his questioners phrased their queries in the third person ("What must a man do to ..."), Jesus usually responded with "You must". No shift of responsibility from the individual to society was allowed under his watch. No dogma would exculpate individual failure.

The Roman Catholic Church has been in retrograde motion from Vatican II since the assent of John Paul II, and has under Benedict XVI rapidly increased its purge of liberalism within and without the Church.

Its latest candidate for the Grinch Award comes with an ultimatum issued by the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. to the District that it will be "unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law".

Rather than extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, Catholic Charities would rather deny shelter to the homeless and food to the hungry.

Quo vadis? Mat 25:34-46 suggests that this is ill-advised strategy for someone wanting to get to heaven:

Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Even that firebrand St. Paul would find the current Catholic self-righteousness un-Christlike and counterproductive, as he clearly states in Romans 12:14-20:

Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."

If you cannot give charity without preconditions and with selfless generosity of spirit, then keep your money. As St. Paul says so passionately in 1 Cor 13:4:

If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

The poor, the hungry, the homeless, are not pawns in some Vatican chess game. Threatening to withhold succor from them to blackmail and pressure secular politicians is evil.

In the 70's we used to sing in mass, "you will know we are Christians by our love". If only that were still true.

Hydrogen's Love Affair with Helium

2009-10-29T10:01:00.000-07:00

One lonely Hydrogen atom sees how noble Helium is and wants to join with another Hydrogen atom to form a Hydrogen marriage. At first, they just moved in together, but inevitably a third Hydrogen would come along and break up this cohabitation scheme. Finally, they decide to fuse their nuclei like Helium.

The Latter naturally object, insisting that only Helium can do that (though rumor has it that sometimes Helium sneaks in an extra neutron or two, those are called Fundamentalist Helium but are now officially disowned by the Periodic Table), and that two Hydrogen could never get close enough to have what Helium has. Once inside they might seduce other nucleons to change identity and destroy chemistry as we know it (indeed it was standard practice to expel from the nucleus such deviants via radiation).

Helium got together with its buddies Neon and Argon to form a coalition of the willing, even though Argon was too heavy to be of use, and stingy Neon turned out to be no more buoyant than hot air (and secretly loathed Helium), so in the end it was Helium, being the lightest, who did the heavy lifting. They passed a ballot proposition by telling the other elements that Hydrogen's real goal is not nobility but alchemy, and that anyway they already had their own, much weaker, Hydrogen bond.

Outraged, Hydrogen charged straight at the Helium nucleus, expecting to do battle with the usual inverse-square repulsive electric force of Evangelical positive ions, the seductive power of vice-ridden negative ions, and the side-swiping of the well-meaning but just as deterring magnetic force which, rather than do any work to help, merely diverts Hydrogen with offers of separate-but-equal civil union, pushing Hydrogen off course and sending him in circles.

But unexpectedly, when Hydrogen got close to Helium, he sensed an unusually strong but very short-range force which he could not explain and did not understand. Formerly indifferent to his presence, Helium was inexplicably and strongly resistant to his nuclear ambitions. Many Hydrogen, understandably angry, started calling Helium bad names like Boron. But one Hydrogen suspected that the very force that was repelling him was the same strong force that bound the Helium nucleus so harmoniously.

More determined than ever, Hydrogen joined Helium blogs (the other noble gas blogs were uninsightful and poorly written) in the hope of understanding the true nature of this strong nuclear force, so powerful that Helium does not steal electrons, is not attracted to alcohol or caffeine molecules, and is always so level-headed.

Now this no-longer lonely Hydrogen does not just advocate for Hydrogen rights or disparage or envy Helium, but seeks to understand the true nature of the strong nuclear force, just one small but essential step on my path to discovering a unified theory of my universe.

Pope trolling for Anglicans

2009-10-21T15:57:00.000-07:00

The NYTimes reports that the Vatican is bidding to Get Anglicans to join the Catholic fold, while maintaining their separate traditions of non-celibate clergy. It seems that politics trumps long-held belief.

More shocking still is that this flies in the face of Pope Benedict XVI's very own words¹ (when he was merely Josef Cardinal Ratzinger):

“Although the particular inclination of the [Anglican priest to become Catholic yet retain the right to marry] is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
“[Marriage for a Catholic priest] is not a complementary union, able to transmit [eternal] life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which [the Catholic Church] says is the essence of Christian [sacerdotal] living. This does not mean that [married priests] are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in [married life] they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”
“The Church teaches that respect for [priests in other traditions who do choose to marry] cannot lead in any way to approval of [such] behavior or to legal recognition [under canon law] of [connubial] unions. Legal recognition [of marriage among the clergy] or placing them on the same level as [the celibate priest] would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior.”
“Allowing [parishioners] to be [put in the pastoral care of priests] living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children [of God], in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development [and that of their Catholic faith and identity].”
“There are absolutely no grounds for considering [priestly marriage] to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan [for the Priesthood]. [The celibate sacerdotal calling] is holy, while sexual acts go against the natural law [of priestly chastity].”
“The various forms of the dissolution of [the priesthood ]today, like free[dom of thought], trial [priests], and going up to pseudo-[ordinations] by people of [other religious traditions], are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man [embracing celibacy in a life devoted to God].”
“[T]he church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice [their Holy Orders within the bounds of marriage], present deeply rooted [conjugal] tendencies, or support so-called [liberal] culture. Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with [God]. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply-rooted [Protestant] tendencies.”

¹Actually,those words within brackets above not Ratzinger's but my own. I have made a few key substitutions to accentuate the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church under the leadership of the present pontiff. I trust I have not done any more violence to the Pope's thinking than He Himself already has.

Cheney is playing Obama...good!

2009-06-01T22:39:00.000-07:00

Full disclosure: I loathe Dick Cheney.

Now, after torturing prisoners of war, illegally wiretapping Americans, and conspiring to out Valerie Plame, Cheney dares to shame President Obama into agreeing with him to support same-sex marriage! Obama must now either take the bait and admit that gays are worthy of that sacred institution (after which the Republicans will no doubt wedge the issue mercilessly) or else be to the right of Dick Cheney on a central tenet of the Progressive agenda.

What is a President to do? If you are Jimmy Carter or Harry Truman, you make the moral choice and take the heat. If you are Bill Clinton, (either) George Bush, or the last emperor of Russia, you consult your James Carville, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, or Rasputin to pick the politically safe choice. (Safe at the time, though the Romanov and Bush dynasties show that history is not always kind to political expediency).

Obama too has his Rahm Emanuel, the man who allegedly cannot call his mother without appending a four-letter word. Obama has defied all expectations (including my own) to become President, and I am very glad for it. Clearly the Man with Hope (like the Man from Hope) has a strong dose of political savvy behind the charisma and needs no advice from me.

Still, I will give it. President Obama, it is time to take that 63% approval rating out for a spin (eerily prescient, Mr. Sorkin!) The American people are fickle, but history is not.

Dick Cheney is suckering you Mr. President. Show him you're smarter than that.

Take the bait.

Primus inter pares: a strategic blunder

2009-05-21T23:05:00.000-07:00

While reading Stuart Whatley's blog post Moral Majority or Immoral Minority?, I was struck by one sentence:

If conservatives wish to elevate their fight against same-sex marriage to primus inter pares without a smarting backlash, they will have to somehow justify this exclusive denial of rights as something other than hidebound bigotry.

Primus inter pares (first among equals) is the status that conservatives currently allot to heterosexuality. Not five years ago, homosexuality was hedonistic. Fifteen years ago, it was perverted. Twenty-five years ago, it was a mental illness.

Conservatives have been playing catch-up with the American public, admitting only enough normality to homosexuality to remain credible on the issue. Unfortunately for them, as in a tug-of-war contest, once you start sliding, the ground gives way from under you. Justice Scalia himself noted in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas that there is no other basis besides the right of the majority to impose its moral standards for discriminating against homosexuals (or for that matter, bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity). As usual, Scalia gives into to shocking exaggeration for effect, but he is largely correct. The only essential difference (barring direct revelation from a Higher Power) between bigotry and public morality is whether the majority (and the Court) feel good about themselves in thinking it.

The public is no longer feeling comfortable with large-scale discrimination against gays. The inevitable side-effect is that there is no other intellectually coherent stopping point. Either gays are defective, immoral, or normal. After ceding the judgment of "defective" in 1975 and "immoral" in 2003, there is only "normal" left.

The latest arguments against same-sex marriage are variously fatuous (it harms opposite-sex marriage), bizarre (it leads to sex with animals), or highly speculative (it harms children). The only plausible arguments, that being gay is a "bad thing" and should not be rewarded, or that marriage is about children and not spouses, are now soundly political losers, rejected by a substantial majority of Americans. Those left adrift in the political center who believe simultaneously that being gay is just fine but that marriage is preferentially for straight people with children are standing on logically thin ice. Their thinking is not at an equilibrium state, and the internal contradiction will inevitably impel them either forward or back, for there is no rational middle ground.

We are not now at a crossroads. That dilemma is past. Those old people stuck in that past have learned too late that righteous indignation, once bereft of righteousness, becomes mere bigotry. Pace Dylan Thomas, even as they grieve it on its way, and do not go gentle into that good night, their time to rule is passing.

And for me, that is none too soon.

Obama, remember us?

2009-05-19T23:34:00.000-07:00

The road to the White House is paved with broken promises.

Obama promised as a candidate to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. He is the Commander-in-Chief. He has a Congress begging to do his bidding. He promised as a candidate to end discrimination against gays in the military.

He has done nothing.

At the White House Correspondents' Dinner, he jokingly compared himself to God, saying that He had accomplished his first 100 days in only 72. And on the 73rd day, He rested.

If you have time to rest, Mr. Obama, you have time to remember your campaign promise and stop allowing the throwing away of valuable military talent (and people's careers) by resistant generals who will drag this out until you are out of office. Congress is willing to follow, but loath to lead, on this issue. You have only to expend a microfraction of the immense political capital that you have.

I know that gays are not going to win politicians any elections (though fortunately we are no longer losing them any!). That is precisely why honoring a commitment to fairness in taking active steps to end discrimination against us is such a clear sign of integrity. It is time to do the right thing.

Because political capital is a terrible thing to waste.

The Black Dyke got it just right

2009-05-12T01:05:00.000-07:00

The black dyke got it wrong. No one told her the rules.

Thus allegedly (and laconically) did Christopher Hitchens call out Wanda Sykes over her undiplomatic and sarcastic “humorous” jabs at all things Republican at the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few days ago.

He is half right. Ms. Sykes is indeed black and (by her own admission) a dyke. It is highly likely that someone did tell her the rules, she just didn't play along.

Nor does Mr. Hitchens. I suspect I am the one missing Hitchens' own satire. Perhaps it was this repulsive idea — that adulatory, sycophantic, even fawning media elite who go to sleep nightly with Beltway-ese language tapes and rise the next day to insinuate themselves farther up Obama's backstory still find it necessary to vaunt (and flaunt) their insider status with a yearly orgy of self-important stroking disguised as stand-up comedy with the very people whom they are paid to investigate — this idea which impelled the usually expansive wordsmith to encode his nausea in two short satirical sentences.

A judge cavorting with a prosecutor would be disbarred. Why do journalists get a pass? Obama calls it torture, yet the New York Times cannot?

The real zinger was when Obama got real at the end of his roast. Crudely speaking (if Obama could speak crudely, which I doubt): “Your industry pimped itself out and lost the trust of the people, who then took matters into their own hands. Now you're crying to me. Sorry, can't help you.”

A credulous press is a threat to our democracy. Bloggers like me know this. Most journalists do to. And then there are the White House Correspondents who prefer their gossip served up first hand in the East Room, where propaganda offends less than rearranging the seating chart. Their paymasters in turn have learned from Limbaugh that in large part the American people are intellectually lazy and chronically incurious and want their prejudgments confirmed by self-selected “news” sources.

So what? If you can't pay for the ink and paper, stop printing (and go online). If you can't pay the correspondent to propagate (as in, propaganda) the words of others, facilitate the countless volunteers who actually want to research a policy (and and not the one making it). Who cares if Obama is for healthcare reform, the question is whether I am for healthcare reform (and if so, which kind?) Any journalism worthy of the name should at least help me decide that I need to decide such things.

This noble quest is now in the hands of bloggers, many histrionic, most partisan, all opinionated. Still, readers are only one Google search away from every side of any issue. Bloggers compete in a truly free market for your attention, and “even though we cannot affirm that the products of mimesis are invested in the panoply of existence” (i.e. even if we're just bullshitting you), a quick survey of opinions (and their sources) quickly sieves fact from fiction.

Did the Black Dyke get it wrong? She wasn't the one voting against my same-sex marriage. She did not worry that in embarrassing Sean Hannity (or herself) she might (heaven forbid) also be embarrassing Barack Obama...unlike the access-craving sheeple in the audience.

If the label "Black Dyke" seems incomplete, perhaps it is because you were secretly thinking "Uppity Black Dyke" and wondered why Hitchens censored himself (and Wanda Sykes). Clearly Sykes has no problem with this designation, for it is the calling of truthseekers. Uppity is exactly what journalists should be, upending the cherished decorum of smugness pervading the Inner Circle who have forgotten that at the heart of Correspondent is the verb "respond". Uppity White Fag is what I aspire to be when one day I get the chance to speak to such a large and influential audience as Wanda Sykes did. Meanwhile, I will settle for Lonely Voice Crying out in the Wilderness.

Love is patient, love is kind. But the truth is jarring and rude. It imposes on friends and turns on its own.

I suppose the Fox News table could have walked out on Sykes' ungracious contumely. But then they would have missed the after-dinner schmoozing, and that would have been such a waste of privilege.

LDS proxy baptism is none of my business

2009-05-05T22:57:00.000-07:00

Poor tormented soul.

Obama's mother was abducted recently. Last seen on Cloud 9, her soul was brazenly stolen by proxy baptists, posthumously baptized into the LDS Church, and is feared lost in a post-mortal LDS eschatology. Although archangels are out looking for her, God Himself seems powerless to stop this odious practice. Obama is considering sending in the clowns.

Truly, the world has gone mad.

If President Obama's religion is even remotely true, then it is asinine to believe that a member of the LDS Church (or any other mortal besides Stanley Ann Dunham herself) has any say over her final resting place. In fact, asinine is too kind (and yet too mean to donkeys). It is heresy to believe this, and any self-respecting (non-Mormon) Christian should be ashamed to have let such paganism into his or her belief system.

It is no surprise to read that the Vatican has called LDS baptisms for the dead a “detrimental practice” and directed each Catholic diocesan bishop “not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (according to the Salt Lake Tribune). After all, they should know about "erroneous practices", given their history.

If we all claim to know the Truth, why the outrage when what they others quietly (even secretly) undertake a ritual we believe will be completely ineffective and harmless?

Slander, pure and simple. However disguised, it is an unjustified free kick at a political opponent. What's not to like? Plenty. Gays are culturally more "odd" than Mormons, and those attempting to "shame" us with our "odd" beliefs are waiting in line to see if the mud sticks to Mormons before pour hot tar onto gays. Those avidly watching Big Love today will be laughing at Butt Love tomorrow.

It is not hard to find legitimate points of disagreement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has not earned my good will in playing such a central role in opposing my same-sex marriage (a purely civil matter) through lobbying (inappropriate for a tax-free institution).

But if we want the LDS church not to meddle in our civil marriage laws, who are we to tell them what secret (and, we believe, vain) ritual they might undergo in the privacy of their own temple? We need to take our own advice and butt out.

By all means, take my future soul away with proxy baptism, and leave me my same-sex marriage here on Earth. Now that's a bargain I can live with.

Separation of Church and Plate?

2009-04-29T00:03:00.000-07:00

(H/T HuffPost, title courtesy of CoolerHeads)

Spoken Sango: a musical language

2009-03-19T00:15:00.000-07:00

For those of you wondering what Sango is, wonder no more. Sango is the national language of the Central African Republic (the official language being French). There are also numerous tribal languages, making most Central Africans trilingual at least.

For those of you out there wondering how Sango sounds when spoken, wonder no more. For your listening pleasure I give you the November 5, 2008 evening broadcast of Radio Centrafrique, Sango language edition, where President Bozize offers his congratulations to President-elect Obama.

You can download the Sango version, or listen here:

For comparison, you can download the French version, or listen here:

I hope you hear how musical spoken Sango is, with its high, medium, and low tones like Chinese. If you listen closely, you can hear numerous French words slipping in (a hallmark of educated urbanites), although the prepared text of the broadcast does try hard to limit the number of loadwords where possible to help develop Sango as a sufficiently rich language on its own.

For those who understand neither Sango nor French, President Bozize expressed (very roughly) the pride that (Central) Africans have that a man of half-African descent has become the most powerful man in the most powerful country of the world, and that this is a sign that skin color is no longer an issue. The Sango motto of the CAR is Zo Kwe Zo (literally "Person-each person") meaning that every person is a somebody, regardless of tribe (or by extension, race or nationality). Those who think this sounds an awful lot like the South African idea of Ubuntu have good instincts. Both phrases center on the word "humanity". For Americans, Obama's election is a welcome sign that we too are at last embracing the idea that Zo Kwe Zo. Strom Thurmond must be rolling over in his grave.

Why does the State care about marriage anyway?

2009-03-07T23:04:00.000-08:00

Stand To Reason Blog asserts what they consider the essential Rational Basis for the State to oppose gay marriage:

...marriage isn't an issue of fairness. It's not a civil right. It's necessarily discriminatory because it favors the kinds of relationships that the state has in interest in. Marriage is unique in that it produces the next generation of society, an interest all cultures must favor. Marriage also provides the kind of stability that not only protects children. Without that kind of stability when the family breaks down, the state has all sorts of new burden that affect everyone, including increased crime and poverty that social programs are then needed to fill the gaps.
The state obviously has an interest in traditional marriage.

Obviously? Let's look a little closer:

The California Supreme Court has applied the standard of "strict scrutiny" in the appelate review in re Marriage, not a "rational basis" standard, so even if the above were true, it is not sufficient cause to oppose gay marriage. The State must clearly show not that children might be harmed but that in statistically significant numbers they will be harmed. No such evidence has been accepted by any court to my knowledge, and most certainly not the California Supreme Court.
None of the three branches of California State government have made the above argument, nor did Proposition 8 make it (having after all only 14 words in it). To be relevant in a legal context, this argument must be advanced through Executive Order, Legislative Action, Judicial Finding, or Popular Initiative. Blogging provides no legal standing.
The claim is facially untrue. Marriage does not produce the next generation, sexual reproduction does. This not only does not need marriage, it will soon not even need parents. A fertilized egg could be incubated, or a person cloned.
The claim is substantively untrue: "About half the babies born in Sweden are born to unwed mothers, though very few are born to teenagers....Despite all these “problems,” the Swedish birth rate has increased steadily since 1970 (Home sweet home, 1995), and children rarely suffer....Swedish children showed the highest educational performance of the four groups in the study, the lowest percentage in poverty, and nearly the lowest child abuse death rate."
The state obviously has an interest in traditional marriage.
No. The state might have an interest in traditional child rearing, in which case it must more narrowly tailor its support, allowing binding marriage proposals only to a woman who conceives (or declares her intention to conceive) a child, with whoever she thinks can best co-parent with her. This marriage proposal would automatically become a marriage contract upon successful live birth (and be retroactively nullified upon failure to achieve this) and would automatically dissolve when there are no children of minority age. Spousal cohabitation (unlike the parent-child relationship) would be a matter purely of contract law, with default nuptial obligations when no prenuptial agreement is in place. In fact, the child would logically even have standing to sue both parents for breach of contract in the case of divorce or family strife. The State obviously has no business involving itself so intimately in the intimate lives of adult relationships, and certainly not in an unequal and discriminatory fashion.

Family law is very messy business, and the courts continually seek (and are legislatively encouraged to seek) advice and guidance on child welfare issues from experts to form a time-varying consensus understanding to inform their legal judgment. There are already ample sanctions against irresponsible parents, without government intrusion into the private lives of consenting adults.

There is a meme, relentlessly promoted by anti-same-sex-marriage advocates, that the State has a right—and duty— to care about marriage. It does not. The State has a duty only to children, not to parents, and though it may permissibly embed what is clearly an instinctive bipartite pair bonding (common among most all higher-order animals) in contract (spousal) and family (child) law, it has no right to restrict this institution to opposite-sex couples. Many religious arguments against same-sex marriage have been advanced, but the First Amendment forbids consideration of these in our civic framework.

No wonder this tired argument never made it out of the sermons and blog pages and into a legal finding. Not the California Supreme Court, not the Assembly or Senate, not even our Republican Governor has shown any more sympathy for this argument than I have.

LDS and Prop. 8: Losing sight of the goal?

2009-03-05T13:41:00.000-08:00

It has been said that the fanatic is the one who redoubles his efforts while having lost sight of his end.

So reminds us Doug McManaman in his (Catholic oriented) essay On the Importance of Taking Oneself Lightly. He goes on to note:

I have seen a tremendous redoubling of efforts on the part of many Catholic teachers in recent years, engaged as they have been in strategic planning of job action for this, for that, and the other thing, all accompanied by a manifest loss-of-sight of the end of their vocation as Catholic teachers of the baptized.

Humans need a purpose to live, and some religious people deep down do not trust that God has given them sufficient purpose. Even among these, some fear that they will not be around to watch the wicked get their just desserts. Theirs is the sin of self-importance.

The LDS focus opposing same-sex marriage is a fixation on means, not ends. As a practical matter, the most probable end in forcing gays to choose between their immanent orientation and God is to prematurely kill their faith in God, or at least to keep infantilized their moral conscience.

Biblically, the usual course of events is a lone voice crying out from the wilderness, followed by earnest exhortations for the wicked to change their ways, which is always ignored, the righteous withdraw, and God smites those left behind. This leaves a clear moral example for those coming after, that free choice has consequences.

We are in uncharted waters now, where the "righteous" decline to withdraw and let God do the smiting. This forecloses on free choice, and deprives those coming after of any cogent moral message.

Or to use another parable: what if the wheat had decided that instead of waiting for the farmer to separate out the weeds after harvest, they are going to crowd out the weeds from the field themselves, not only usurping the farmer's prerogative to decide the weeds' fate, but forestalling the possibility that a weed may choose before it dies to become a wheatstalk.

I believe it is this second aspect that is ignored among the religious. You cannot save a sinner by preventing him from sinning, you only strengthen his resolve to sin. If same-sex marriage is so far beyond God's plan, will it not prove its fruitlessness in the fullness of time? Does the wheat not have enough to do in producing grain, or must it also weed the garden?

If the real goal is not the voluntary choice of chastity, but chastity itself, then we would be better off neutering those unwilling to marry the opposite sex by some age cutoff. Would this not better serve God's plans for humankind? By eliminating sexual desire, do we not eliminate the sin? Is the elimination of sin itself the real goal? Or has our willingness to be the instrument of God's will metastasized into an insistance on our being that instrument? Do we just need to be needed?

Maybe we should all stop playing God. One day the field will be harvested. If the weeds are not keeping the wheat from producing, maybe we can afford to let both coexist until the final winnowing.

Or is the real problem that you don't want to be the wheat, and would rather be the farmer? If God had just wanted us not to be wicked, he could have just created us all heterosexual.

Do you have the wisdom to play God? Judging by the LDS involvement in Prop. 8, somehow I doubt it. Maybe you should just stick to being wheat and stop uprooting the weeds, before the entire field is barren.

Hope

2009-03-03T23:08:00.000-08:00

"Persecuted by governments. Arrested and beaten for being who we are. Our rights put up for popular vote, time and time again."

Equality California's new ad makes the connection between past persecution and current discrimination, such as the passage of Prop 8:

(alt. video link)

Actually, gays' rights are usually not put up for popular vote. The immediacy of a popular referendum on your life is so much more compelling than having some mere bureaucrat stand in your way. It's nice to know where you stand, once in a while.

I know where I stand. I hope the California Supreme Court will be standing there with me.

Overturning Prop. 8 would be a win for all

2009-03-02T15:13:00.000-08:00

There is a false rivalry between Mormons and Gays.

Proposition 8, which overturned the CA Supreme Court's ruling that gays have a right to marry (each other), presupposes that the right for gays to marry impairs the right of the religious to keep marriage religiously based.

Nonsense. This confuses ends and means. Gays are looking for what and don't care about how or why. We win when we achieve the goal. Religious (especially Mormons) win through the fight itself. It is the opposing that matters, works being the most credible sign of belief, the sacrifice for a good cause, fighting the good fight. The final result can be safely be left to God's hands.

All sides win if the California Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8: Mormons can feel satisfied that they reaffirmed their belief in a divine transmortal marriage and did all in their power to defend this, gays can (finally!) get married, and marriage itself gains from being shown explicitly not to arise merely out of statute or public will (even one that included gays, had Prop. 8 been defeated), but out of a more basic natural right.

LDS, Gay, Marriage: all three winners when Prop. 8 wins before losing. All sides could be proud of their participation and be winners by their own criteria: Mormons in their means, Gays in their end, and Marriage for all.

Let's hope the Court does not miss this opportunity to make everybody happy.

I'm in the New York Times!

2009-02-28T00:34:00.000-08:00

I'm so proud. Read how awesome I am in my very own New York Times bio. This is better than IMDB! Oh wait, I'm in that too. Oh, and on Hollywood.com, and...well, I just can't keep up with it all.

Inexplicably, my popularity is down 35% this week on IMDB. I guess 7 of my 20 fans must have had enough of my insatiable need to be famous. But what can I do...they're family.

Anyway, I would like to thank the Académie (française, that is. The Other One is trademarked).

And don't worry...I've already submitted the 3 missing film credits to IMDB. They assure me the diss was unintentional. I guess you have to be much more famous than I before they intentionally diss you.

Freelancing for Fun and Fame

2009-02-24T11:18:00.000-08:00

I knew this day would come.

No one blog is broad enough in scope and target audience to contain all the wisdom I have to offer this world. So, I took the plunge and wrote my first guest post on a topic and blog very different from what you'll find here.

First, read the nice introductory send-up from my gracious host, to remind you why you like me so much.

Then, on to the main course, the highly stimulating apology on how one can in good conscience be both Mormon and Libertarian, aptly titled Mormon Libertarian: Not an oxymoron?.

Still, editors being what they are, I was asked to pick a punchier headline, so for those of you camels out there who've put on a few pounds and can no longer fit through the eye of that proverbial needle: Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy:

Latter Gay Saint overturns Luke 16:13 with new Revelation: Ye can serve both God and M(or)mon.

Here's hoping this doesn't use up my 15 minutes of fame. I'm not done basking in it!

The Literate Presidency

2009-02-09T23:39:00.000-08:00

Mark Nickolas has consulted the Oracle of Redmond to render an objective judgment on Obama's and Bush's literacy.

While mere humans are still processing Obama's first Presidential press conference, Microsoft Word has already reached an unsurprising verdict: Obama is smarter than Dubya.

Or at least presents himself more intelligibly. In unprepared answers to reporters' questions, Obama speaks at a 10th grade level, Bush at a 7th grade level. To be fair, Obama is still talking down to us, whereas Bush was fully utilizing his English skills to their utmost. Perhaps when Obama gets more comfortable with the long-dormant intelligence and education of his audience, he will let drop more sesquipedalia. In the interim, it already gives me hope just to hear our leader speak extemporaneously on at least a high school level of written English, after the prevaricating and evasive locker room bro-speak of the previous tenant of that high office.

Or, as Henry Higgens had it, “You'll get much further with the Lord if you learn not to offend His ears.”

Mine too.

Quo vadis, Papa?

2009-02-03T23:48:00.000-08:00

The Independent reports that Pope Benedict XVI has overturned the excommunication of four bishops ordained by the arch-conservative Society of Saint Pius X.

Who are these wayward souls so deserving of mercy? According to The Independent, three of the four are:

Richard Williamson

British bishop consecrated by schismatic French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Has said the Vatican is controlled by Satan and once declared the historical evidence was “hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers... I believe there were no gas chambers.”

Floriano Abrahamowicz

Regarded as unofficial chaplain of Italy's separatist Northern League. He told an Italian newspaper: “I know the gas chambers existed... but I don't know if anyone was killed in them. I know that, in addition to the official version, there is another version based on the observations of the first Allied technicians to enter.”

Gerhard Maria Wagner

Appointed auxiliary bishop in the Austrian city of Linz last week. In 2005 he suggested that disasters such as Hurricane Katrina were the result of “spiritual environmental pollution”. “It is surely not an accident,” he added, “that all five of New Orleans's abortion clinics... were destroyed.”

Why would the Pope rehabilitate such Holocaust-deniers? Maybe he felt the need to short up his base after the election of Obama and the decline of the Catholic Church in Europe? Maybe he's willing to sacrifice the Jews (and the moral standing of his flock) to lure back the idolaters left behind by Vatican II? Maybe he is merely isolated in his Papal Apartments by a Machiavellian Curia?

Or just maybe, the Vatican really is controlled by Satan. This explanation is the least frightening alternative, and has at least the merit of freeing Catholics from the shame of this decision. Not that His Holiness needs my advice: the Pope seems to be without shame already.

To my hero, Richard Dawkins

2009-01-10T17:01:00.000-08:00

Those who dare not to perceive,
soon find they cannot apperceive
what they have lost, and at what cost.
when vacuous belief turns fatuous in grief.
Who derogate fact and propagate fiction,
who surrogate science with superstition,
who abnegate their own rights, in due course
will abrogate another's without remorse.
If arrogation is the end,
prevarication is its friend,
as weaker minds religion binds,
and guilt and shame kill hearts and minds,
Thus sinners their sins expiate
and with Hail Mary's try to mitigate
their penance from an Angry God,
as priests conflate charade and fraud.
What hope have men of reason to oppose
a too-convenient myth in Jesus' clothes,
who first must needs destroy to recreate
our birthright of free thought and noble state,
While men of faith queue up at Peter's Gate
and pray they serve who just submit and wait,
wise men know better, and do not idly pass the time,
but counter ignorance with reason and with rhyme.
Is not then nature good enough,
with quantum foam and Eightfold Way,
when cows go moo but donkeys bray,
when banana's shape is perfect for our hand,
but only once we grew it on command?
They execrate stochastic fate,
with teleology they imprecate the questioning of man,
instead in awe of Higher Law and Guiding Hand.
And yet benign if not quite by design?
Good works at least, done with alacrity
by those with Higher Calling, can it be
that Darwin summoned God to quench our need,
that we in turn encode in sacred screed?
No, much malign and fully by design.
Obedience compelled vicariously,
obsequious to absent liege,
compliant under present siege,
a docile population at its best,
not second-guessing a request,
but acquiescing to behest.
Not knowing what is true, but knowing how to know,
not eschatology but much more modestly,
epistemology, know how to learn, and yearn to
teach, the scientist and teacher preach,
Then poetasters like yours true,
take up baton and see it through.
Let all with curiosity impart
the secret truth of sentient heart,
what really matters womb to tomb:
per cogitandum solum sum.

— Dan Weston

When they say it's not about sex...

2008-12-31T03:07:00.000-08:00

You know the old saying: when they say it's not about the money, it's about the money.

When it comes to gays, many "obvious" truisms are turned around. A well-meaning straight male acquaintance of mine once offered his admiration (envy?) that since there were no women on a gay date, there was no one to say no. I didn't know whether to laugh or get offended, until I let myself understand that he honestly believed that I spent my nights in a never-ending orgy of debauchery. Or that I wanted to. Or maybe that he wanted to.

With a few more years under my belt to understand straight male sexuality a little better (if second-hand), it may be time for a little myth-busting. Here is my top-ten list:

1. Celibacy is about sex.

False. "Celibacy" means abstaining from marriage. "Chastity" means abstaining from sex. Americans (and American English dictionaries) often screw this up, and there is no need. Two valuable words, and two very different meanings. Since the 60's the former does not imply the latter.

Recently though, having stumbled across a rather interesting gay Mormon blog, I now have learned to my surprise that the latter does not rule out the former. There is apparently intention among some gay male Mormons to marry women with knowledge aforethought that sex will be the price of admission, not the reward. Perhaps a turkey baster will be involved (though I recommend alcohol, as it also helps you forget). Apparently the woman is okay with this idea. Who knew?

Count me out. Marriage can survive the lack of sex, but not of sexuality. That is a sham marriage, and both spouses deserve better.

2. Sexuality is about sex.

False. It is about the desire to have sex, a very different thing. Sex is, in the scheme of things, not very important to human beings, gay or straight. You may have heard the ribald saying that begins "When I was young and in my prime...". It's true. (If you don't know this saying, just take my word for it).

The nude fill straight bars and bathhouses with talk of sex, enchanting the uninitiated and initiating those so enchanted. Gay men, written out of the storyline early on, make do with talking to themselves, then too often make up lost time chatting up complete strangers. They learned this from straight men, in case you want to assign blame.

The naked have something far more important on their mind: sexuality. Not will they get enough, but will they be enough. For religious gays, then answer is no. Ouch.

For those who confuse the naked with the nude, you have led a deprived life. Stop now and read my favorite poem.

3. Gay men are obsessed with sex.

No, though magazines and websites would have you believe otherwise. For gay men, there is nothing casual about casual sex. One's entire self-esteem is on the line: the gnawing fear of inadequacy, the baggage of yesterday and tomorrow, the sudden realization that you have gotten fat in places visible only with clothes off, the suspicion that he who lies too easily with you today will lie as easily to you tomorrow.

What gay men really obsess about is getting old and dying alone. Without sexual allure, who would want us? We learned too early on about rejection, and too late how to live with it. Straight men rely on money as their last resort. In the gay world, money won't cut it. There are enough sugar daddies out there. Youth and beauty are priceless.

Unless, of course, you are married, like me. Then you have love that will last even as youth and beauty fade.

4. Straight men are obsessed with sex.

Close, but no.

What straight men fear (so I hear) is being naked in public, and they hide their nakedness in nudity: overconfidence masks impotence. They wear a variety of masks in public to will into being the perception of being in control. Sex in our taboo culture is power, and (straight) men learn to wield it cruelly in junior high just as bossy girls turn into awkward self-doubting teenagers.

Women (and you gay men out there as well), don't be fooled by this charade. There is a fascinating book by Norah Vincent, an out-and-proud self-proclaimed "dyke" [but straight people, don't use this word, it's just "lesbian" for you: you'll somehow just have to learn to live with the unfairness of this double standard.] Anyway, the book is titled Self-Made Man: One Woman's Journey Into Manhood and Back Again, and draws its inspiration from John Howard Griffin's eye-opening 1961 book Black Like Me, which documents the experiences of the author, a white man, who puts on black face to learn firsthand the anti-black prejudice of Southern whites, even from those who believed themself not to be racist.

The "obvious" analogy in a lesbian setting, the anti-gay and anti-woman sentiments that "no doubt all straight males shared", led Norah Vincent to go undercover (as Ned Vincent). Some things matched her own preconceptions: men hate looking foolish in front of other men and fear looking foolish in front of women. Some things didn't. Most every time she tried (as a man) to instigate anti-woman or anti-gay jokes when only other men were around, she rarely found a receptive audience (apparently one guy thought that she was misogynist and needed help). And she (as a woman) was shocked at what masks men wear even for their closest friends, letting out their inner turmoil only in bursts of anger, sadness, or martyrdom (where a woman is involved), but only for a second. Men are, after all, expected to "suck it up", or risk being seen as unmanly.

Straight men play it close to the vest, because they have much to lose. But not nearly as much as gay men do.

5. Gay man are just like straight men.

Definitely no.

For one thing, we have much better fashion sense. I used to believe that straight men were completely fashion-braindead, until the uglier truth dawned on me. Many men have their clothes bought for them by girlfriends and wives, both of whom have a vested interest in dressing down their man to keep rivals away. Men that dress themselves tend to go for the "I'm not gay, stop looking at me" outfit, like the dreaded low-cut jeans/tailored striped untucked shirt/square-toed dressy casual shoes uniform. Add a thin black sports coat for a more metrosexual look (which is grecoroman for dressing like you don't care if people think you're gay but making sure that they know that you're not).

When straight men look at a woman, they are not worried about being caught. When a gay men looks at a (possibly straight) man, he is simultaneously 1) admiring his looks, 2) assessing whether he's straight, 3) if so, how long/frequently he can look without being caught, 4) if gay, whether the guy is looking back, 5) not getting caught showing interest in someone who will repay it with attitude, and 6) how to extricate body and self-esteem from the situation if any of the above goes wrong. Pulling all this off on a daily basis takes a lot of practice, and gay men come late to the game. Do straight men realize how much thought and effort goes into figuring out just how much alone-time a gay guy can spend with a straight bro before being outed as a mo. I know of no straight man (okay, maybe one straight man, my friend Brendan) who could handle all this insecurity and not go crazy.

Gay men also (usually) are not driven by overt competition to the extent that straight men are. Testosterone, and the aggression that it triggers, really does correlate with straight maleness. So does wrist size. Who needs gaydar when you have a tape measure. The wrist and lower forearm circumference tell all.

One thing gay and straight men do have in common. When both fail, they think deep down that they weren't "man enough". But with straight men, this feeling usually ends with the next conquest. With gay men, the feeling is only reinforced.

6. Gay men are straight women trapped in a man's body.

Okay, no one really believes this, do they? You do? Well then...

First of all, gay men are as intoxicated with male privilege in our society as straight men are, and are loth to part with it.

Secondly, one's sex (physical), gender (psychological), sexual orientation (attracted to whom), and sexuality (aroused by what) are different things, and falsely conflated in our repressed society. There are perfectly heterosexual men, who like being men, who like wearing women's clothes (they're called transvestites). There are gay equivalents (called drag queens). Some drag queens are actually female-gendered would-be transsexuals, stuck in a pre-op holding pattern. Others are perfectly contented gay men, who love the fashion (and drama) opportunities for self-expression that women's clothing allows, but don't want it cut off any more than you do.

Finally, when I'm not thinking of how fine Brad Pitt looks, I'm probably thinking of a math problem or the Mideast, not reading Cosmo or Elle. I hate shopping, don't need to go to the bathroom with friends for company, and don't get a thrill if my boyfriend shows up with some overpriced bauble.

7. Homophobia is like racism.

Except when it isn't.

Gay men can usually pass when they want to, black men can't. White gay men have to deal with one kind of oppression. Black lesbians have three kinds to contend with (and, it turns out, usually the gay part is not the most onerous of these).

Black kids grow up being hated by strangers. Gay kids grow up hating themselves. Blacks face oppression, gays repression.

Blacks have won the moral battle but are losing the demographic one. Conversely, although many religious still publicly revile homosexuality, their victory is hollow. God may be on their side, but time is not, and if polls are to be believed, their hostility is not likely to outlive them.

Many well-intentioned straight people are too eager to overlook the differences between straight and gay, and too reluctant to overlook those between black and white. In both cases, usually these well-intentioned straight people are oblivious to (or in denial of) the hurt caused by this.

Sexual orientation and race do strongly intersect with straight gender roles. Male privilege is what allows straight women to accept gay men much more easily than straight men can. It also explains why white man + black woman is so much more easily tolerated than black man + white woman. The fact is that gays and blacks will never be fully equal until men and women are, and this may be a long time coming.

8. You can love the sinner, but hate the sin.

Maybe Jesus can. The rest of you can't pull this one off. Just admit it. Why add hypocrisy to the mix?

Why does your husband keep leaving the toilet seat up? Laziness? Forgotfulness? No, it's about spite and control. You know he does that to assert his right not to. It makes you mad. You keep forgiving him, but he refuses to admit his sinful nature. Why won't he be more like a man should be?

What you really mean is, why won't he be more like you? The attempt to control and change the rational and self-interested behavior of someone who stands while you sit is not about making man in God's image, but remaking him in yours. No quote from Leviticus is going to change that bit of hardwired human psychology.

"Why can't a woman be more like a man?", Henry Higgens muses. Who is he kidding? Thinly disguised misogyny, dressed up as objective criticism. Strangely, Higgens does not obsess about why a slug, unlike a snail, is born without a shell. Clearly, it was less loved by God, born defective. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against slugs personally (though we would be better off without them). They just are not fulfilling God's mandate...

of pandering to your own preconception of how snails should be. Leave both snail and slug alone. If ever you are called to atone for your sins, odds are high that you will not also need to atone for those of your neighbor. Nor is it likely that suffering a shellless snail to live, or letting that gay man next door get married to the love of his life, will rank at the top of your list.

9. Civil union is the same as marriage.

Yeah, right. When you got down on one knee, did you ask your wife to join you in a blissful consensual domestic civil quasiheteroconnubial bipartite cohabitation contract? If you did, I hope she said no.

The fact that both you and I are making such a big deal about this proves, if nothing else, that civil unions are not "good enough". As with computer graphics, the more verisimilitude you achieve, the higher the stakes. We know the real thing when we see it, and an airbrushed version only reminds us that something (or someone) was left out.

10. Gays are never satisfied!

Try me. I can take yes for an answer.

I'll let you know in a few months, after the California Supreme Court rules on Prop. 8, which rescinded my right to marry.

In preparation for the horrible possibility of equal status under the law, I will try to think up a new obsession. Ideas, anyone?

Shrewd sidelining, or shocking sell-out?

2008-12-17T22:50:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama is a skilled politician.

That's at least what I'm counting on, because the alternative is worrying. It seems that Barack Obama has invited Rick Warren, the Palmer Joss of the 21st century, to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration.

Here is what Rick Warren (founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, a megachurch located in Southern California, and author of the bestseller The Purpose Driven Life) says about gay marriage (emphasis added by me):

One controversial moment for you in the last election was your support for proposition 8 in California. …
The issue to me, I’m not opposed to [California's 1999 domestic partnership law] as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
Oh , I do.

It seems in his haste, Warren forgot about bestiality and sex with plants. Or can plants and animals marry each other? What does it say when, regardless of his feelings about gays, a person who is invited to speak at a Presidential Inauguration cannot distinguish the large number of gays seeking cohabitation from the infinitesimal number of "other" unions (like dog/fire hydrant). Last I checked, there were not 18,000 brother/sister pairs lining up in California to legalize their sibling pair bond. This distortion is defamation, and if Warren does not see a qualitative difference, at least Obama should extract from him an admission that gay marriage is quantitatively different from these "slippery slope" false comparisons before giving him the microphone.

Or perhaps I'm being too thin-skinned? This is just a speech, after all. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Any good discussion has a least two sides. Let's hear from one of Warren's defender's. Steven Waldman, the founder of the mainstream and centrist website BeliefNet.com, offers this defense of Warren's views. I will merely summarize the main points here:

Warren has used his fame and fortune primarily to help the most destitute people in the world. He reverse tithes, giving away 90% and keeping 10%.
He's worked hard to get other conservative evangelicals to care more about poverty
He has voiced his own spiritual doubts.
He's mostly about God.
For Obama, picking Warren for the inauguration...helps to depoliticize prayer — which, of course, is very politically shrewd.

Reason 1 sounds great, and Warren is a good counterforce to the grotesque and very unChristian belief in the Prosperity Gospel, and though reasons 2-4 are no more than one should expect of any Christian pastor, you rarely get it in most megapastors. But the last reason is self-contradictory. The very purpose of having a prayer at a political event is to mingle religion and politics, to remind the sovereign that he rules dei gratia and not merely populo volente. Still, majority sensibilities must be assuaged (and Obama of course professes to be Christian), so if politics is what Obama is playing, I fully support the move.

But, as I wrote in an earlier post, Obama is not in favor of gay marriage either. Since the President has no power over state matters like marriage, I will be content if he ends discrimination of gays in the military, as he and his people have been hinting will happen in the next six months or so. Maybe having Rick Warren speak will lower the volume on Evangelical blowback?

For now, I'm keeping my fingers crossed and going with Shrewd Sidelining, not Shocking Sell-Out. It's not as though I have much choice. I sure hope I'm not wrong. It's a terrible thing to discover that you've been worshiping a false god.

No religious exemption from Free Speech

2008-12-05T07:49:00.000-08:00

I was wondering how long it would take for the oppressors behind Prop. 8 to play the victim, although it is a difficult feat to pull off for any group that can afford a full-page ad in The New York Times.

Mormons have collectively been taking a lot of heat for their singularly active role in working to pass Prop. 8 in order to strip gays of their preeexisting Constitutional right to marry in California. Their participation went way beyond that of any other organization, religious or otherwise, by more than a factor of 10 (more than 100 per capita). To their small credit, they have not greatly disputed their role or sought political cover for it.

Yet political cover is on the way nonetheless. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit advocacy group that promotes Religion (not religious liberty as they claim, as they do not advocate for atheist rights). They interpret the First Amendment as favoring religion, not being neutral to it. Here is how they expect a free advantage in public debate (from their ad No Mob Veto):

“We're a disagreeable lot. We differ about a great many important things...Nevertheless, we're united in this: The violence [?] and intimidation being directed against the LDS ...—and even against individual believers—simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop.”

Who's we? Presumably the 13 signatories (almost all with a vested interest in preserving religious privilege). What violence? There was no statistically significant violence, much less ongoing. This is a shameless strawman slander to incite the reader. Indeed there is intimidation: lawful, legal, moral intimidation. Public shame and boycotts.

“Of course, when a religious organization enters the public policy arena, it must be prepared for disputes.”

That's an understatement: anyone wading into a public policy dispute with profound negative effect on a historically oppressed minority should prepare for war, limited only by the legality of its methods.

“Let's be clear: even the crudest anti-religious propaganda isn't illegal, and may not constitutionally be outlawed. But it's nevertheless wrong. It has no place in civilized society.”

Fascist and fatuous. The Constitution protects Free Speech, lawful assembly, and the right to petition because they are such precious rights. Far from wrong, they are our duty in a free society. Politics is bruising business. You don't get a free ride to rescind the rights of another less popular than you and then feign indignant surprise when they defend themselves.

And now brace yourselves for one more bit of strawman outrage over a nonexistent problem, their "righteous indignation":

“We announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship...from violence....”

As I hope we all would, naturally. But just who is burning this mythical cross or swastika, throwing bricks through Church windows, in some systematic wave of violence? The only major increase in hate crimes this year has been against gays and lesbians. As for last year, where full statistics are available from the FBI, less than 2% of hate crimes were against Christians, whereas 16% were against non-heterosexuals (and for perspective, 36% against African-Americans and 12% against Jews). I think that any feigned wave of anti-Christian hysteria should be kept in statistical perspective.

At last we come to the "threat":

“Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry—against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason.”

Bravo, now you have lowered yourself below even my standards. I do not try to impose atheism on others, just work to leave Religion out of the public debate. Now we hear that these Religious will come to the aid of other Religious to protect the supremacy of the role of Religion itself. Religiousity is now a favored quality of being American. Religion is too precious to be attacked. All hail Religion.

What can you say against this religiofascist impulse? As one of its more famous adherents put it: Bring it on! Isn't Free Speech messy? You can start with me (okay, that's a bit presumptuous, maybe you should start with Richard Dawkins, as he was here long before me).

I categorically and publicly reject subordinating my conscience, scientific reasoning, politics, rights, and civic duties in mindless subservience to a superstition merely because it is popular.

Much less do I defend the practice of superstition itself, as though ecumenism in fantasy makes it less sectarian: your Flying Teapot for my Easter Bunny.

Religion is Latin for "that which binds one back from". I do not need my free will restrained from free thought and shackled to some popular prejudice handed down from even less enlightened forbears, and I would gladly shame such people as have advocated the apotheosis of superstition in our society.

But those having signed this half-strawman half-arrogant petition of privilege have already shown themselves to be unshameable. And that's a God-awful shame.

Happy Golden Anniversary, CAR!

2008-12-01T00:03:00.000-08:00

Bon anniversaire, la République Centrafricaine!

Fifty years ago today, on 1 December 1958, the French Equatorial African colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic, largely due to the heroic efforts of its founding father and president, Barthélémy Boganda.

Its motto in Sango is Zo Kwe Zo (All People are People). It is such a beautifully succinct statement of principle that I have adopted it as the title of my blog.

As a former Peace Corps Volunteer who spent two years in Kembe, CAR, I would like to take the opportunity on this golden anniversary to offer my personal thanks to the CAR for hosting me as a junior high math teacher and offering me the opportunity to get to know its people and culture.

On my home webpage, you can find a more extensive write-up about my experiences there. If you get a chance, pop over to it and take a look.

When did we arrive?

2008-11-29T16:32:00.000-08:00

I have been so obsessed with the battle against Proposition 8 that I forgot to notice the clear signs around me. We are winning the war.

Gay people are now assuming positions of greater power and visibility (or more likely, people in positions of greater power and visibility are finally coming out).

One we are very proud of is Rachel Maddow, the new MSNBC cohost. Her keen wit and refreshingly un-bimboesque charisma have at times outrated both Larry King and her own mentor Keith Olberman in prime time. She has been dismissed and ridiculed variously as "chirpy gay liberal" by the Financial Times, "Ooh, Lesbians! Yummy!" by John Gibson, and (naturally) "lesbian Air America host" by Fox News. High praise from wingnuts. They are right to be worried. Sharp as a wasp stinger, Rachel Maddow's CV includes a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994, the prestigious John Gardner Fellowship, a Rhodes Scholarship in 1995, and a D. Phil. in political science from Lincoln College, Oxford University.

Another hero is Anderson Cooper, great grandson of the famed Cornelius Vanderbilt II and the very popular and telegenic host of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360°. He has the distinction of having both gone to Yale and having interned (or been interned?) at the Central Intelligence Agency (twice!). For more about his qualifications, see here. I will just dwell on his courage in interviewing (almost naked) someone even better looking than he is without clothes on, Olympic swimmer and medal winner Michael Phelps. The video speaks for itself.

Forgive the double standard. I couldn't find a near-naked video of Rachel Maddow.

David Letterman: why slander is no joke

2008-11-25T23:46:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, I called out David Letterman for his anti-gay comments during an interview with James Franco about his role in the movie Milk.

I have noticed comments in numerous other blogs minimizing his "antics" and chalking them up to the "usual infantile behavior" of late-nite insomnedy.

Now I don't get TV reception (I saw this video online), so maybe you're right. That means that the other episodes presumably feature Letterman wearing black face and eating fried chicken, reading his top-ten list of ways that Jews control the world, and telling stupid wetback jokes.

Or could it be that it's just gays that are still fair game for slander and slurs?

There was nothing funny about Supervisor Milk's and Mayor Moscone's assassinations. It was a hate crime even more heinous that that of Matthew Shepard, because in addition to ending the lives of two great men, it targeted the then sole out gay public official (and any "traitorous" straight public official who dared to join him) and with him the promise of hope for a long persecuted group of people.

Dan White was a mentally ill person who resigned from the Board of Supervisors because he was not being paid enough to support his family. His supporters had no such excuse. White Catholic working class, crushed in the recession, gentrified out of the City, and shoved aside by more succussful competing sociopolitical interests, applied great pressure to White to get back his (i.e. their) place at the table. Sickened that some perverted freak had the Mayor's ear (it was indeed Milk who persuaded Moscone not to give White his job back), they (through White) lashed out. Given the anti-gay sentiment (that I well remember) of the time, he had every right to think that the broader public would side with him as well.

They did, buying his Twinkie defense, and he served only five (of seven) years in prison. The White Night riots that ensued at the minimal sentence, along with the prior Stonewall Riots in NYC, launched the gay rights movement, which has continued uninterrupted to this day as we fight for same-sex marriage and an end to senseless expulsion from the military.

Dan White was a straight man who clearly needed to be "less drunk" to kill two men than to kiss one (with this image certainly known to him and fresh in his mind from only three years prior, in what would become a perverse bit of irony).

The Twinkie Defense seems to have morphed into the "I was so drunk" defense, and inured ears do not bristle at it. If so, it is time to de-ure those ears.

Harvey Milk did for gays what César Chávez did for Latinos and what Martin Luther King, Jr. did before them for African Americans, yet I don't hear David Letterman ridiculing those men on national TV.

Watch the movie Milk (released on December 5). If after that, Letterman's jokes about being drunk enough to kiss a man playing Harvey Milk still fail to trigger your gag reflex, then it is not just David Letterman who should be ashamed.

Proposition 8 from a Catholic Perspective (Part 2)

2008-11-24T23:46:00.000-08:00

Why churches fear gay marriage

Interesting and insight-filled interview with a gay Mexican-Californian about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Zo Kwe Zo

2008-11-24T14:37:00.000-08:00

There comes a time when the old you no longer fits, and a makeover is in order.

I have renamed my blog (and changed its URL) to reflect the new me.

The phrase "Zo Kwe Zo" is in Sango, the national language of the Central African Republic, a beautiful country that is the heart of Africa where I was lucky enough to be sent for my two years in the U.S. Peace Corps. I hope that in greatly expanding the Peace Corps, President Obama will "send the troops back in". I hope after retiring to be able once again to return again to the CAR as a reentrant PCV.

"Zo Kwe Zo" is the founding motto of the Central African Republic, and means "All People are People", a direct allusion to Thomas Jefferson's line in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that "All Men are Created Equal".

This theme having of late become the central focus of my blog, the pursuit of equality for all, including gays and lesbians, combined with the none-too-soon demise of the Bush Administration, has once again given me optimism in the direction our country is headed.

The powerless Rantings of a Crazed Lunatic, despised and marginalized by a country under the spell of the Religious Right, at last can give way to a more positive expression of belief in the possible, confident that (with effort and furious blogging) we will in my lifetime see the Promised Land, where zo kwe zo.

David Letterman, the joke is you

2008-11-23T22:01:00.000-08:00

What's the difference between David Letterman and Michael Richards? Answer: ridiculing African Americans is no longer tolerated.

While actor James Franco was describing the thrill he felt at costarring with Sean Penn and working with director Gus Van Sant on the film "Milk" about gay activist Harvey Milk, David Letterman was much more tittilated with Franco and Penn kissing.

Watch how James Franco tries to get the interview back on track and explain that he was nervous about getting the kiss authentic (while being watched by those who knew Milk personally), even as Letterman tries vainly but relentlessly to get him to admit that he was grossed out by the hot man-on-man action.

Somewhere between "how drunk are you [to have to kiss a guy]" (2:23) and "we're registered at Target" (3:00), I knew I was watching the death rattle of an old turd passed over for Leno and reduced to a temper tantrum when McCain stood him up.

Letterman ceased to be funny so long ago that I can't get too worked up by his junior high hang-ups. Still, I would have thought, given how many women Rock Hudson kissed on screen ages ago, that this drivel wouldn't pass today for humor.

What kind of perversion is this to be paid several million dollars to kiss Sean Penn? It's called "acting". Clearly, a concept Letterman knows nothing about.

Why we can't just agree to disagree

2008-11-18T09:24:00.001-08:00

LDS blogger Natasha offers advice to gays on how to deal with the loss of our marriage rights. Right now I am busily preparing reasons why she should leave the LDS Church. Neither piece of advice is likely to be followed.

Luckily, she also provided me a link to a video which very accurately summarizes my views of the role of the LDS Church in taking away my marriage rights. So, with hat tip to Natasha, I post it here as my response to her, why gays will never agree to disagree about same-sex marriage.

No peace without justice.

Power of the People

2008-11-06T07:49:00.000-08:00

Free at last.

Obama's election was about freedom. Free from the divisiveness of the former (oops, I mean current Administration!) whose name like Voldemort I dare not even utter for fear of tarnishing the celebratory nature of this post.

Black Americans have won an incredible prize, and they richly deserve it, both as individuals and as a people united in a common struggle for the respect of their peers. This paragraph, and the celebrations around the country, belong to them first and foremost, and for few happy moments others are happy and eager to cede the limelight and the stage.

When those moments have passed, there are other freedoms from this election. Even as Blacks have found victory as a people (and start the slow process of doing without that identification), Whites have stopped acting like a "people", and found it had long ceased to serve them adequately. Latinos still identify weakly as a people, identifying as White and Catholic more than the mantle of La Raza that others keep trying to lay on them.

And then there are the Gays. Yes, we are devastated by the passage of Proposition 8. Yes, we admit that notwithstanding this we have enjoyed a meteoric rise in our struggle over the last ten years never before seen by any oppressed people in our country's history. Yes, we are a diverse group that but for the oppression might splinter and be absorbed by other self-idenfications.

But we are oppressed. We are still We. We are a people. In some ardent discussions I have been party to with some Mormons recently over Proposition 8, I repeatedly ran into a brick wall of understanding that crystallized the problem for us. Those who voted for Prop. 8 did so largely with the understanding that gays were not a people, and could therefore not legitimately take up battle for marriage in the name of civil rights, for these were names that a people used. We were individuals, whose plight to my surprise many Mormons seem strangely sympathetic to, but then it is easy to feel sympathy for individuals: an old woman crossing a street, a homeless man, a disabled veteran, a lost puppy.

Let lost puppies collect and identify as a group, and sympathy is gone. Barking in unison, angry as hell and not going to take the domination of humans any longer. Withholding affection until wet dog food is available at all times of the day. This kind of talk turns even dog lovers queasy. Dressing up your dog in drag, teaching him to walk on hind legs, and do calculus in the dirt, is a marvel. Having him decide to sit at the table and eat breakfast with you is not.

Not so long ago, having a Black entertainer in a nightclub was trendy, too. Having Blacks sit in the audience was not.

It is times like this when we must confront our innermost prejudices. When having the well-traveled wit of your gay best friend at a cocktail party is the definition of class, but having the validity of his marriage celebrated in your child's class is not. When straight women join with lesbians to obtain and defend reproductive choice, but run back home to husband and children before the validity of gender role choice is affirmed.

Will and Grace has been a great boon to gay men. We have proved that the Great Straight Mainstream (GSM) can laugh with us and at the rubes who hate us. But to a gay people, it is running on empty. One challenge of same-sex marriage is that there is nothing funny about it.

Gays have three great challenges left: to be treated as a people who don't have to entertain for their dinner, to act responsibly as a people once accepted as such, and then (like white Americans) to let go of identity politics and allow the full diversity of each individual to grow.

The election of Barack Obama has shown that these steps cannot be skipped, but that to advance requires a coalition of different people from all stages of social progress.

As the Obama Freedom Bus pulled away from the station, we cheered it on its way. Though there was not quite enough room for us onboard, we are hopeful and confident it will be back to pick us up later.

And if it does not, we are prepared to walk.

With respect, Barack, you are not The One

2008-11-02T21:18:00.000-08:00

It is our privilege to call out our enemies, and our duty to call out our friends.

Barack Obama would vote No on Proposition 8. Here, in his own words, is why:

I think it's unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them.

President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military. Here is what we got instead:

Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.
—The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military, The New York Times (July 20, 1993), p.A14.

Barack Obama has evidently learned from the Clintons not to promise what you cannot deliver. His statement to MTV is a friendly warning to the gay community that, unlike Dianne Feinstein, he will not be spending political capital on the radioactive.

Fear not, Barack, you have our total support. We know to take what we can get. There are many progressives sitting on the Obama bandwagon, and we are grateful enough to be on the bus at all that we will obligingly take our seat in the back.

But just between us, you are wrong. You are my hero and you have my vote, but you are not The One.

The One would have known better.

Proposition 8 from a Catholic Perspective

2008-11-02T10:19:00.000-08:00

I can best describe my Catholic perspective by departing from the Mormon perspective, which I have examined in previous blog entries. I marveled at the apparent Mormon obsession with same-sex marriage. I realized now that I was wrong.

The obsession is not about sex. It is about gender. This interview with two high-ranking officials of the LDS Church is titled "Same-Gender Attraction". But aren't sex and gender the same thing?

No, and I am glad the LDS Church makes the distinction, because it is very important for them. Sex is about chromosomes (and what you do in the bedroom). Gender is about who you identify as psychologically (and what you do when you are not in the bedroom).

Evangelicals may be obsessed with sex, but the LDS Church rests on the family, anchored by a Male Father and Female Mother.

The Mormon utopia is a well-honed script, where everyone acts their part. I say "acts" and not "plays" because there is no pretending going on. Everyone does their duty, there is no shirking. Utah is the Beehive State for good reason: The LDS Church is a beehive that derives strength from the cooperation and cohesion of its members.

There is no friction in the group because the roles, especially gender roles, are well delineated, with strong positive reinforcement for those trying to lead a good Mormon life (and increasing gradations of negative reinforcement for those who do not).

The strong nuclear family structure, including its highly praiseworthy innovation of a Family Day, one day of the week set aside just for the family along together, provides a safe caring framework for chidren to develop interpersonal skills, a good character with appreciation for the role of mutual obligations and respect. One side effect of this is a fondness for order and distrust of anarchic and ephemeral fads coming from our turbulent greater society.

Too good to be true? That depends on how well you fit the suit. One man's suit is another's straitjacket. Catholics make due with a broader, looser, more chaotic environment, because adherence to Catholic values requires it.

My parents were the ideal Catholics. They wanted a large family and had six children. We too were raised in a manner very similar to Mormons, admittedly in a much more chaotic household. My father had to work long hours and my mother had her hands full.

Somewhat unusually for Catholics, we grew up in an affluent area, so my mother's peers were mostly non-Catholic (and non-Mormon), with two kids, a busy work schedule, and doing their high-powered charity stuff well armed with fancy titles. I suspect many of them may have harbored secret (or not so secret) negative opinions about the traditional lifestyle that my mother was living. My mom was not fazed. She knew that there is no job more important: not in developing the character of a child so much as being a physically present role model of good values as the child forms his or her own character. Like Mormons, Catholic parents also come armed with a script for how to accomplish this best. This needs all the structure that can be brought to bear, so if she could not work outside the home in order to fulfull this mission, then she would not, and did not.

And then along comes a gay son that goes off script. A child hardwired and preordained not to follow in his parents' footsteps, find a wife, get married, have lots of children, and start the process anew. That child was me.

And here is where, generally, as a group and a church, Catholics and Mormons part company.

Mormons value family, but one that fits into the broader LDS context. The Mormon family edifice is a puzzle piece that sits in a larger puzzle, which is more a crystal than a mosaic.Gender roles form the boundary of these puzzle pieces, and a piece that cannot lock to its neighbors, to their mutual cohesion and security, is at risk being left out of the finished product.

For Catholics, there is nothing more important than family. Not God, not Church, not social standing. Catholic atheist is not an oxymoron. Catholics take from their Jewish forbears the obligation to do the right thing for its own sake, even if no one is looking (and even if God is not looking, for atheist Catholics). Like Mormons, Catholics lean heavily on their children to adopt the Catholic way of life, too amorphous a concept to delineate here but well known to any Catholic who has been put through it. As Evangelicals publicly militate to end the right of others to terminate their pregnancy, Catholics work more quietly to improve the conditions for young people to lower the overall number of abortions. Life begins at conception, but does not end at birth. Catholic socal teaching challenges us to gladly pay taxes to fund social welfare, senior care, end-of-life dignity, and is repulsed by the arrogance of terminating the life even of convicted murderers. Catholic families are a necessarily chaotic incubator for these values, and these families fit loosely together in the loose mosaic of like-valued (but not necessarily like-minded) community of Catholics worldwide. Non-Catholics may be surprised at the lack of mention of a priestly hierarchy or Pope. Catholics (as a rule) know better. Priests (and Pope) are like coathangers to help us keep our clothes off the floor, but are not the clothes themselves. They provide paved roads for us to follow (usually the best route to take), but we know when it is better to go offroad to get where we need to.

In very a simplistic comparison: nonreligious children are guided by hope, Evangelical children by fear, Jewish children by guilt, Catholic children by shame, and Mormon children by the threat of exclusion.

When faced with a gay child, Catholic parents are wracked with shame. Where did we go wrong? Where did we fail our child? How can they have a family of their own?

Mormons seem to add to this list one more bridge, and for too many gay Mormons this is a bridge too far: how will my child fit into the LDS Church which, embedded in our larger hostile world, provides an overarching, cohesive, cradle-to-grave-and-beyond universe. A child who falls from this all-encompassing embrace is left with nothing. There cannot be, for it is not dissent that threatens the Mormon ideal, but disorder. A house divided cannot stand. The needs of the whole outweight the needs of the one.

For Catholics, that is far too high a price to pay. The needs of the child are exactly why the family even exists at all.

A Catholic family, though divided, must stand, and will. God himself may abandon (or in turn be abandoned by) such a family, the Law may send one to prison, all of this only strengthens our resolve. If a gay son cannot be straight, then the law, and theology, must give way. Coming to grips with a gay son was very difficult for my mother. Deciding how to vote on Prop. 8 was not. As she repeated told me growing up, she would run up to grizzly bears, jump off bridges, or break through the gates of Hell itself to rescue her chidren. Her greatest fear was that we would not lead a happy and fulfilling life. If same-sex marriage will bring happiness to her children, then she will make it so.

My husband is a proud addition to our family, and at every family gathering he cannot attend (because he has his own parents as well to visit) my family asks why he could not come and how he is doing.

I have written extensively on the various reasons — legal, ethical, moral, psychological, political — that justify my right to marry the man I was meant to be with. My family needed no such rhetorical efforts. Catholics are not typically the intellectuals, trendsetters, troublemakers, entrepreneurs. We are a quiet resolute people, with a few bedrock principles that guide our otherwise amorphous and not easily categorized beliefs. One of these is family.

Marriage was created for the family, not the family for marriage. My Dad is very easygoing, and likes just about everybody. But remember: if you vote yes on Prop. 8, you are not only separating me from my husband, you are separating my father from his son-in-law. And that, no Catholic father will stand for.

Pro-family, pro-marriage: Vote No on Prop. 8.

It is the Catholic thing to do.

Certain victory for same-sex marriage (but when?)

2008-10-31T12:56:00.000-07:00

The Field Poll is the gold standard of California polling. When they speak, we should listen.

Once again they have spoken (and for the last time) on Proposition 8. I urge you to read the fascinating analysis. The message is very clear: We live in a highly divided state.

No, not on gender and race (that is so last millenium!) but in geography, political ideology, party affiliation, age, education, and religion. Strangely, these are quite strongly correlated.

Grandpa, a lifelong Republican, voted early for Prop 8 by mail. He's a huge fan of McCain, lives outside Sacramento, is strongly conservative, didn't make it past high school (who could afford to back then!), and never misses Sunday services. Although he doesn't know any gay people (he doesn't get out much), he assumes they're likable enough and doesn't believe the attack ads. He usually minds his own business, but marriage is just too important for him to give in on. He wants to protect the institution of marriage for his granddaughter for when her live-in boyfriend is ready to make an honest woman of her. Hopefully, he will still be around to see it.

His granddaughter Katlin is now in grad school. She never trusted politicians much before, but there's something special about Obama, and she is looking forward to voting for him on Election Day. For her, No on Prop. 8 is a nobrainer. She has lots of gay friends, and they hang out on Sundays in the City. She's tried talking to Grandpa, but they live in different worlds, and she's given up on his generation anyway.

Grandpa won't change his mind, but he won't be around much longer. The future belongs to the multiethnic, multicultural, diversity-tolerant embracers of Change: our youth. As it should be.

It seems Grandpa is at last outnumbered. It appears (after some fretful gap closing) that Proposition 8 is ready to be defeated: 49% to 44%.

Even if (unthinkably) we are set back once again, we should remember John Milton's admonition: they also serve who only stand and wait.

Grandpa is not ready for change. We are. The good news for most of us is, we can outwait him. The better news is, it seems we don't have to.

Proposition 8 from a Mormon Perspective (Part 2)

2008-10-28T18:07:00.000-07:00

Just what is it that drives 2% of the California population to donate 40% of the money to annul my marriage?

Not satisfied with my prior post, I decided to look further and found the answer in scott's comment on this blog post).

Below are some highlights of the official Mormon teaching regarding same-gender attraction, according to two high-ranking officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church and Elder Lance B. Wickman, a member of the Seventy.

Needless to say, I disagree with essentially every one of these beliefs. You decide.

[NOTE: comments in italics are those of the interviewer or my own providing context, and not those of the Church officials]

Is homosexuality innate?

homosexuality...is not a noun that describes a condition. It's an adjective that describes feelings or behavior.
homosexual feelings are controllable.
The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn't have a position on.

So are homosexuals just out of luck?

same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.
There's really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it's not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction....I happen to have a handicapped daughter...[who] will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do....whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord's assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed. We just need to remain faithful.

Isn't homosexual about who you are, not what you are?

I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school.

Why does the Church care about civil marriage anyway? Isn't that just a private matter?

marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy.
It really doesn't matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it's given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, "That is not right. That's not appropriate."
children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.

Do you see any irony in the fact that the Church is so publicly outspoken on this issue, when in the minds of so many people in the United States and around the world the Church is known for once supporting a very untraditional marriage arrangement — that is, polygamy?

I see irony in that if one views it without the belief that we affirm in divine revelation. The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him. The Mormons of the 19th century who practiced plural marriage, male and female, did so because they felt it was a duty put upon them by God....if you start with the assumption of continuing revelation, on which this Church is founded, then you can understand that there is no irony in this. But if you don't start with that assumption, you see a profound irony.

Here's some real irony: God apparently keeps changing his mind.

Mormons used to but no longer believe (thanks to divine revelation) in polygamy (abandoned in 1890), the inferiority of black people (abandoned in 1978 with the following immortal words: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said [about Blacks and the priesthood]... We spoke with a limited understanding."), and the belief that God was once a person.

Mormons still believe that a "woman's primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband", that the dead can be baptized (including more than 300,000 Jewish holocaust victims), and that access to the Temple (including a Temple Marriage that lasts through all eternity) can be denied to those who do not give 10% of their income to the Church.

I can only hope that God will once again whisper into the ear of the Prophet (currently Thomas Monson) that He as changed His mind yet again on His views of gender role and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, I guess we're stuck duking it out the old fashioned way: via the ballot box.

Proposition 8 from a Libertarian Perspective

2008-10-21T00:34:00.000-07:00

I am no Libertarian, as popularly understood. Nonetheless, I advance here a purely libertarian defense of same-sex marriage that I regard as sufficient support both for supporting the California Supreme Court decision in re Marriage and for opposing the California Constitutional referendum Proposition 8.

There are two questions that a libertarian should consider: whether the judicial question was correctly decided, and whether there is a moral justification in overruling this.

The salient (and my opinion correct) reasoning of the California Supreme Court is firmly based i.a. on the following reasoning:

The Legislature has disavowed a public policy objection against same-sex unions by voluntarily creating a legal equavalent in domestic partnerships and by estoppel cannot simultaneously argue a rational interest in favoring opposite-sex unions.
Rational basis of discrimination is in any case insufficient because heightened scrutiny is the required test, since homosexuals are a suspect class (as a subclass of gender-related discrimination).
A subordinate status of domestic partnership strictly less than marriage (i.e. separate and unequal) is well established from near-universal rejection of the alternative status by heterosexuals, vitiating contrary claims by same-sex marriage opponents.
Even stipulating the primacy of child rearing as the primary purpose and effect of marriage, no compelling evidence has been admitted into evidence at trial that same-sex marriage is deleterious is this end. The burden of proof of any factual hypothesis remains with its asserter.
Though not normative, existing precedent from Massachusetts and foreign jurisprudence reduces the hurdle of judicial novelty.

The moral basis for overturning this ruling has not (and I believe cannot) be established for the following reasons:

Discrimination against homosexuals is well documented, and must be ethically presumed to be invidious barring compelling reason.
Homosexuality is well documented in multiple species, across unrelated cultures, and throughout recorded history, despite strong sanction against it, and is therefore scientifically established as an innate orientation, not an intentional choice.
Stipulating the assertion by same-sex marriage opponents that there exists a legal equivalent of marriage, and despite the countervailing trend of more permissive sexual opportunity, the broadbased expression of desire to marry by homosexuals must be accepted prima facie as evidence that homosexual orientation is not merely a sexual drive but a sexual identity. This facial presumption is reinforced by the near impossibility of psychological conversion, as accepted by the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations.
No evidence distinguishing homo- and heterosexual pair bonding in kind has been scientifically shown. In particular, no evidence exists that the desire or intention to procreate is the cause rather than effect of marriage. Suggestive evidence to the contrary would include an elevated divorce rate among infertile couples, widowed and postmenopausal adults, and couples with adult children.
For libertarians, government involvement in interpersonal relations is inherently intrusive and should be narrowly tailored. In particular, laws fostering child rearing should be limited to those bearing children. Given the low cost of medical tests estabilishing parental relationship, this is a feasible limitation of government power.
The (in my opinion vacuous) counterargument that private discrimination against homosexuals should not be hindered by government action is not relevant here, as same-sex marriage seeks governmental, not popular, support. Hypothetical and indeterminant "slippery slope" arguments are impossible to defend before they are advanced, and should be addressed only as they arise in particular.

I intend the above to be a sufficient reason to vote against Proposition 8, though it is certainly not a necessary one. Aristotle held that the law is reason devoid of passion. Pace Aristotle, I still believe that the most compelling reason is the non-legal one: it is the right thing to do. If you do not already believe this, then you are likely ill-equipped to distinguish rational argument from rationalization, and this post is probably a complete waste of both our time.

Still, I had to try...

Palin's pals: White trash trashes Obama

2008-10-16T22:42:00.000-07:00

It doesn't take much to anger John McCain, and true to form he got angry in the third Presidential debate:

Let me just say categorically I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies. Whenever you get a large rally of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 people, you're going to have some fringe peoples. You know that. And I've — and we've always said that that's not appropriate.
But to somehow say that group of young women who said "Military wives for McCain" are somehow saying anything derogatory about you, but anything — and those veterans that wear those hats that say "World War II, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq," I'm not going to stand for people saying that the people that come to my rallies are anything but the most dedicated, patriotic men and women that are in this nation and they're great citizens.

Who exactly are these patriotic citizens of the Heartland?

The above video (available on YouTube) was filmed by Al Jazeera, singling out no doubt the kookiest Americans to make a point. Still, they seemed authentically American to me, and no dubbing was needed to put those vile and ignorant words into their mouths. One of the least bigoted comments was actually the most revealing:

I don't like the fact that he thinks us white people are trash.

Now why on Earth would he ever think that?

Proposition 8 from a Mormon Perspective

2008-10-13T23:36:00.000-07:00

How has the Yes on 8 campaign affected Mormons?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last weekend launched a massive drive in support of California Proposition 8 to take back the right of gays to marry in California. The above link points to a blog written by a lifelong Mormon and native Californian, and I strongly urge you to read for yourself. It is compelling and speaks in a more authentic voice than I possess.

In short, it claims that the single-minded pursuit, launched by the highest levels of the Mormon church, to take away the right of gays in California to marry is not only a threat to gays, but also a threat to the spirituality and cohesion of Mormons themselves, and has awakened ugly expressions of fear, pride, arrogance, triumphalism, intolerance, and division among its members. It has given too much prominence to the role of wealth in the Church and is an outlet for "feelings of shame, revulsion, disappointment, and failure in having gay children or family members".

Why in particular are Mormons, more than most, obsessed with gay marriage (funding 40% of the support for Prop. 8)? It may be that they place unique importance on marriage itself because, unlike Christians and atheists alike, a married Mormon couple stays together not just "til death do us part", but throughout all eternity. That is a long time to allow two men to stay married. Let me quote the LDS Apostle of the Lord, Elder Russell M. Nelson, sent out over the weekend:

A Temple Marriage...is the highest and most enduring type of marriage that our creator can offer to his children....Only those who are married in the temple and whose marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise will continue as spouses after death and receive the highest degree of celestial glory or exaltation.

This statement shows clearly what the Mormon First Presidency fears most: not same-sex marriage, but loss of the keys to the afterlife. To stay married after death , you need a Temple Marriage, for which you need a Temple Pass, issued only to those in "good standing", meaning i.a. that you pay your 10% title.

The Catholics had a good run with this scheme once upon a time: they sold Indulgences to bail your relatives out of Purgatory (and just in time to fund the construction of St. Peter's Basilica), but when superstition gave way to reason, and under threat (later honored) of schism, they yielded on this venal ploy.

This belief in the persistence of marriage beyond the grave gives Mormons more incentive than most to get the institution of marriage right and defend the privilege of their own view of who exactly can participate, and to this end they have raised over $8 million, dwarfing every other contribution by an order of magnitude, as well as order their flock to actively canvass our neighborhoods with the gentle-sounding scare tactics.

From this perspective, same-sex marriage is indeed a slippery slope, not to the fancifully farcical predictions of bestiality, incest, or polygamy (though I hear the Mormons know something of the last), but toward an end far more dangerous...

It is not gay marriage that Mormon leaders fear, but secular (i.e. non-Temple) marriage of otherwise well-meaning and good Mormons, which is a gateway sin to not tithing. The Mormon community is a cradle-to-grave fraternity, with no dissent tolerated. [I know more than one Catholic Archbishop that would love that loyalty and power!]

The Apostle goes on to say:

And some [marriages] are cunningly crafted by the adversary. Beware of his options: they always breed misery.

He disappointingly fails to elaborate on the exact source of this misery. Had he done so, I could have stayed alert to avoid it. You see, I am a gay man, married to a man, and have never been happier. This misery which apparently awaits me, is taking its time to arrive.

Perhaps I would have been happier in a Platonic friendship (except I already tried that with a woman, which tormented her, then with a man, that tormented me). Perhaps I would have been happier sleeping around with random men (not really my style), or marry a woman (and watch helplessly while her self-esteem and youth erode before my eyes). Perhaps they think two men cannot live in one house, pay one mortgage and property taxes, grow old (and fat) together. I am living proof that they can. If this is the misery I am condemned to, count me in!

Proposition 8 is simple because the arguments themselves are vacuous. All content is in the axioms: is homosexuality innate, does Jesus' love trump St. Paul's homophobia, who suffers most if we are wrong?

Remember before you vote, that a yes vote might forcibly divorce me from my own husband, vacating my vows to be with him now and forever, and make the divorce rate go up! You will be undermining the successful and solemn marriage of another. Your hands will be dirty.

No longer just a little confused

2008-10-02T12:28:00.000-07:00

No original thought for today. Instead, I will pass on this video¹ contrasting Obama's excellence with Palin's mediocrity and expressing "confusion" how she can pass herself off as the "better American":

I myself have never been confused about the reason for this. Underachievers have always hated overachievers, viewing the latter as a threat to their self-esteem. I call these people the "I don't know much" people, because they are so often inclined to take non-original opinions overheard at the water cooler, pass them off as their own, then preface the (sometimes bigoted, always ignorant) comment with the phrase "I don't know much, but I know this...". Well, they're half-right anyway. They don't know much, and don't much want to. For the dumb, lazy, and undereducated, ignorance is bliss.

[1] I found this video posted to a youtube channel PalesInComparison under the title "I'm a Little Confused" but no original source was listed, so I regret I cannot give credit where it is due (though the production quality is worthy of a TV ad and was likely professionally created.)

Suor Angelica Soars while Fly Falls Flat

2008-09-30T00:49:00.000-07:00

To the sublime from the ridiculous...

Puccini's Il Trittico is a triptych of one-act operattas, of which the second "Suor Angelica" is especially powerful. It's about the daughter of royalty who brings deep shame on her family by getting knocked up, then is locked away in a convent and spends seven long years there with no word from her family, until at last her evil aunt the Princess comes to disinherit her and reveals that Sister Angelica's son had died years before. Upon hearing this, Angelica longs to join her son in Heaven and, in her rush to poison herself with flowers from her garden, realizes only too late that suicide is a mortal sin that will damn her to Hell. In pleading that would bring Spock himself to tears, she cries out to the Virgin to save her. In a move that could in lesser hands might have bordered on corny, the irradiantly blueclad Virgin gracefully descends on a wire to hover silently over the stage and brings forth Angelica's son in radiant light. All is forgiven and mother joins son in death, happy at last.

My worries about LA Opera this year from the fatally flawed The Fly have been completely put to rest.

The staging of Il Trittico is a visual feast, with each act quite distinct. Sondra Radvanovsky plays the title role of Sister Angelica with grace and a powerful soprano voice that earned her robust applause midway after the most famous aria "Senza Mama", as well as a long standing ovation after the Finale (which I liked even better), where her voice reminded me of the legendary Renata Tebaldi, whose unequaled concert performance of this role I leave you with here (visually accompanied by various slides of her life). Let the healing power of Puccini and the Virgin wash over you as you listen to the Finale:

Then, compare the Finale above with Renata Tebaldi's own rendition of "Senza Mama" here and see for yourself which is the more moving.

Poor Palin in crosshairs of Con double-cross

2008-09-26T13:14:00.000-07:00

At last the coalition between Conservatives and Christian Evangelicals is fraying!

In perhaps the first crack in the glass floor of blind support for Sarah Palin from a bona fide Conservative, Kathleen Parker succinctly identifies the Palin Problem: She’s out of her league.

Some good zingers from the article:

I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

What an ingrate! Sarah Palin is very clearly not up to fixing the mess that you caused (or at least the Ayn Rand ideology you represent), but at least she wasn't the one that gambled on the good name of the US and lost, to the tune of $700 billion dollars!

Giddy as I am about this schism, I feel duty-bound to remind you, my inconstant Conservative opponent, of your marriage vows: You Gotta Dance With Them What Brung Ya. In case you hadn't noticed, Sarah Palin has been drawing larger crowds at speeches than John McCain has. If he loses this election, it will not be because of her.

Just read Papa Bush's lips: payback is a bitch, and her name is Sarah Palin (a non-sexist term, given that she self-identifies as a pit bull with lipstick, and she is female). The last I checked, John McCain was voted politician least likely to stay bought, the only kind of honesty a politician can objectively claim.

The bankrupt ethics of Wall Street shows that Conservatives have lost any right to lead this country. If, after a free ride to the Promised Land on the backs of hard-working low-paid anti-intellectual Christian rubes, the Cons attempt to trample them fleeing their hit-and-run megawreck of the American economy (also known as Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor), they will certainly lose any chance to.

Then again, since Christian Evangelicals sold their soul to the Devil (Nixon, Reagan, Dubya) to feast at the table of power and now no longer can squeeze through the eye of that needle, maybe they get what they deserve. After all, they have been praying earnestly for Armageddon, and now it seems the kleptocratic oligarchs have delivered.

The Fly: more Dreck than Shrek

2008-09-21T02:55:00.000-07:00

What an inglorious start of the 2008-09 LA Opera season! As a subscriber this year, I was eager to sink my teeth into a worthy sequel of the exciting original atomic-era 1957 film and the later 1986 remake. Remaking this as an opera is a worthy goal. Opera is essentially a collection of stirring arias stitched together with plot-advancing recitative and some elaborate stagecraft.

With the The Fly, the aimless chanted dialog was unbroken by even a single aria, instead droning on like a Gregorian chant, in weak voices unable to make themselves heard over the robust orchestra (luckily, I could lighthouse from stage up to the supertitles and back every half second to assist my underdeveloped lipreading skills). The only clear voice was from a high tenor leather daddy in the bar scene.

The set dressing was elaborate but steel-gray and static, without a single set change. The funds provided by the NEA and the James Irvine Foundation having been no doubt exhausted on an admittedly good-looking pair of ominous telepods, the other scenes were simple props (desk, folding chairs, fake pool table) placed stage front, without even the benefit of decent lighting design to hide the lab equipment behind. In fact, in one memorable lighting mishap, the lone spotlight fails to illuminate the armwrestling match (don't ask!), instead brightly lighting a patch of empty stage several feet in front. I can only assume the folding table did not hit its mark. Later, a massive rack of back lights shone in our eyes — and on each other — blinding the audience to all but the cables and scaffolding.

The libretto was mere plot without drama, jarringly punctuated with mixed tone ("Swear that you love me. Do you swear? Pinky swear?", as the two principals interlock little fingers in an oath of fidelity). Contrast this with the passion of Donn'Anna crying out for revenge in Mozart's Don Giovanni: "Fuggi crudele...vendetta!" Such was the wrath and passion of this that years later, I can still sing the aria aloud. Even the brief nudity and muscled bare chest of the would-become Fly Seth Brendle (played by scrumptious Daniel Okulitch) could not elicit passion from his romantic interest. Political correctness having now placed off limits the inherited power of traditional stereotypical for "leading ladies" such as wife, mistress, coworker, or even infatuated student, the vapid libretto of David Henry Hwang (of M. Butterfly fame) settles for a skeptical female science reporter (a non-sexy job in the best of times), who after a one-night-stand turns into a spy for her ex-lover and boss.

The transformation from human to Brendlefly (which we learn is the scientific term for the fusion of Seth Brendle and musca domestica), far from the grand Kafkaesque (or even Teen Wolf) metamorphosis that I had expected, was tackily accomplished with a Creature from the Black Lagoon outfit and a computer monitor (sung aloud by monotonous chorus offstage), describing in bizarrely graphic detail the physiological changes underway: "First, he bit his fingernail off, then his teeth fell out, followed by his gums, then he learned to vomit his stomach acid, then suck them back up." I had had my fill of this stuff back in Junior High. Indeed, the fact that white liquid was ostensibly oozing out of cracks in his skin (we take the computer monitor's word for this, as nothing is shown on stage) was apparently thought so tittilating and witty that the identical line was used a minute later to describe what oozed out of his fingers and toes when they fell off. In short, ten minutes listening to a human autopsy report. The final scene has the leading lady end with a Palinesque announcement that she is pregnant with a flybaby and will not abort her larva in utero but rather give birth to this fruitful ménage-à-quatre fusion of man, woman, fly, and telepod (assuming it does not kill and eat her in childbirth like an Alian). Given religious conservatives' opposition to both abortion, bestiality, wireless internet, and group marriage, I wouldn't even hazard a guess whether they approve of her intention to raise the fly offspring on her own outside the bounds of a traditional family structure. (Sounds like we need another California Proposition to stave this one off...)

Truly, the only character that engendered my honest affection was the baboon puppet, expertly animated to give a charm exceeding that of the Winged Monkeys in the Wizard of Oz. The insufficiently shocking grotesque moments where baboon and later Brendlefly were turned inside out were not signalled for the proximity-challenged with a helpful stage scream, faint, shout, or gesticulation, giving me plenty of time to analyze the red paint on the mannequin and mourn the missed climax.

It is probably unfair to expect the cast to have done more with such a simple libretto, lacking dramatic irony, false or real climax, or surprise. Indeed, the first Act ended so abruptly that the audience did not think to clap. Again, at the curtain call, the applause was hanging on out of sheer politeness while the cast stole a second bow.

Still, all of the above challenges paled in comparison to the true stinker of the night. The music, written by moving picture soundtrack writer Howard Shore, had the feel of a soundtrack. Arias are no doubt very difficult to write to be memorable, lyrical, without ripping off the great operas of yore. Still, this audience member would have appreciated the attempt. I can only contrast this with operatic musicals like West Side Story or especially Rent, which successfully stood up to Shakespeare and Puccini, respectively, with both courage and originality. I would say more about the amorphous mass of notes, except that even two hours later I cannot remember a single motif or chorus. Apparently, the music of the second Act was so poorly received in Paris that it was rewritten for LA, and indeed the first several bars where qualitatively different (as though written by another?) but soon gave way to the same basso continuo paralleling the enless recitative.

The tragicomedy of the The Fly is that it fails utterly to excite even with the benefit of nudity, a rather humorous sex/rape scene, backstory of compelling Promethean hubris, onstage acrobatics, and geek humor. This takes some doing, since the jokes actually made me laugh out loud, so I will repeat some here. You will either scream with the smug laughter of an insider, or be left bemused and bored.

Why did the chickin cross the Möbius Strip?: — To get to the same side.
Who was Heisenberg?: — I'm not certain...
Why do scientists have such trouble picking up women at parties?: — Because they are so rarely invited to them.
Ah, French champagne. Although I think it's from California.: So I guess it can't be champagne. So why does it have bubbles?

Reacting negatively to criticism of the score, a professional musician friend of mine (who often works orchestrating and performing film scores) suggested I take some blank note paper and a pencil and try my own hand. I certainly am no musician, but think I might just have a go at a better libretto. Good drama is disguising human tribulations in animal clothing, not dressing up soap opera with fancy lab equipment.

In all fairness, the LA Opera has taken on a bold and ambitious season repertoire year, with two Wagner Ring operas, as as season ticket holders we are proud sponsors. It is completely understandable that they need to bookend the season with modern works (The Fly, The Birds), both to cater to younger tastes of the new subscribers of a younger generation, as well as to fill out the schedule with less-costly ventures. Let us hope that The Birds (unlike The Fly) will take flight.

Character counts, not cowardly casuistry

2008-09-19T17:44:00.000-07:00

The Library of Congress shamefully discriminated against hiring a highly qualified (and as it turns out transgendered) candidate (whom they had wanted to hire) after that candidate expressed the intention just before starting work to transition from male to female. Quoting from here:

The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the Library of Congress on June 2, 2005. After retiring from the military, Schroer, who had been hand-picked to head up a classified national security operation while serving as a Special Forces officer, applied for a position with the Library of Congress as the senior terrorism research analyst. Soon thereafter she was offered the job, which she accepted immediately. Prior to starting work, Schroer took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and thought it would be easier for everyone if she simply started work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn't a "good fit" for the Library of Congress.

Happily, a federal judge has just ruled against Library of Congress, which, in a shocking bit of casuistry, had moved to dismiss the case several times, claiming that transgender people are not covered under Title VII of 1964. Leaving aside the legal validity of this assertion (the judge found it specious), this is a very disturbing example of the metaethics of our modern culture, where what is ethical is reduced to what is legal. Morality is replaced by prejudice, ethics by not getting caught.

Good character demands more than avoiding censure. There being in any case certainly no federal law requiring the firing of transgendered persons, how was it that the applicant's boss justified this action? Did the position, like a Hooter's waitress, require extra-professional qualifications? Perhaps, the unspoken requirement was to contribute to a "positive and comfortable work environment" (i.e. pander to others' basest prejudices)?

There is a philosophical question about the source of ethics, dating back at least to Attic Greece. Does ethics proceed from morality (do what you think is right) or from casuistry (rule-based, satisfing the minimal common-law framework that society requires)? I believe the better course of action of an ethical person is to take the more restrictive result of these two: do your duty to yourself and to others, where both can be accommodated.

The above judgment redeems the plaintiff, but for the defendant there is little chance of redemption. What does not flow from within cannot be sucked from without. That judgment must be left to a higher power.

Putting my money where my mouth is

2008-09-17T21:51:00.000-07:00

Call it an insurance policy. We all know what road is paved with good intentions. We also know that the road to victory costs money. In a state as large as California, that means a lot of money.

Some people are so eager to "defend" marriage that they are trying to force me into an involuntary divorce. I am optimistic that the mean-spirited (or misguided, depending on how charitable I am feeling) California Proposition 8 will fail. However, I could not look myself in the mirror if it passed and I had done nothing to oppose it.

I just contributed money to the No on Prop 8 campaign, a coalition of just about everybody against this attack on marriage equality.

When I was in college, I marched against Apartheid and went to rallies. Now that I am older and too busy to donate time, I am glad that I can still play a part. If you also are so moved, No on Prop 8 will be glad to make use of whatever time or money you have to offer. The opposition has raised almost all its money from outside California, who see this as a make-or-break moment for their retrograde beliefs. They have outraised us more than 3 to 1 and promise to spend $20 million to prevail in November. Strangely, church collections are more motivating than public radio beg-a-thons. What does that say about the Blue half of this country?

Be a part of history in the making. Take (as I have) the Starbucks matching pledge. For every dollar you spend at Starbucks (or whatever church you religiously attend), match that with a dollar to No on Prop 8. We will need a decisive victory, or this hydra will be rearing its ugly head in two years' time.

And I will, once again, be living in sin.

White privilege and the N-word

2008-09-17T01:05:00.000-07:00

Resolved: Whereas you can say the N-word, I cannot. I am fine with that.

For y'all following along at home, take a look at this link to read up on White Privilege and to arm yourself with some perspective on the issue.

Then watch the following episode of The View and try to hear why white people are in no position to lead the charge on getting past racial-divide bitterness. Listen especially closely to the last half where Whoopi Goldberg and Elisabeth Hasselbeck discuss the legitimacy of using the N-word (and try to ignore the "girl fight" aspect that many men instinctively turn off to...the point here is about race, not gender).

(Alt. link here)

In summary caricature: Post-racial Barbie insists on teleporting to the Promised Land already ("why won't you take yes for an answer?"), while Angry Black Woman demands first an admission of guilt before letting her move on ("you're not hearing me").

Here's the reality. White people do enjoy an advantage over black people in America. This is true whether either group wants to mention it, fight against it, or deny it. To be angry about this undeserved privilege, or to repurpose and arrogate to themselves the exclusive right to use a single sometime slur, is the right of black people. To acknowledge the undeservedness of this privilege (however unsought or undesired) is the duty of white people. Until this is agreed on, there can be no leaping to a post-racial utopia.

If you think it is unfair to be blamed for something you didn't cause, or to have one English word that you didn't even want to use put off limits to you but not to others, it is. But don't move this injustice to the top of your queue just yet. Those slots are already taken by far worthier indignities.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. I just wanted to go on record. There has been far too much "get over it already" white indignation for my taste in the discussion over the role of race in the Presidential election, and there needs to be some push back. We now resume our regularly scheduled blogging...

It's the Party, stupid!

2008-09-09T13:42:00.000-07:00

Have you heard the one about the Independent Voter?

An undecided Independent Voter was faced with the dilemma of whether to vote for Obama or McCain. As a test, he asked each of them several questions:
How will you fix an economy ravaged by eight years of plutocratic Republican policies?
How will you engage a complex and increasingly multilateral world?
What kind of Supreme Court nominees (up to 3 of them!) will you choose to replace the aging (liberal) Justices that may leave office in your term?
First, Obama gave an articulate, reasoned, and policy-rich reply, based on his inspiring life story and the values of the Democratic Party.
Then, McCain delivered his blunt assessment that government corruption and national security are his top priorities, where partisanship will have no place.
The Independent Voter was very impressed by both their responses. He then gave long and careful consideration...
And then voted for the one whose Vice-President has the biggest tits.

If you are offended because the previous line is sexist, then shame on you. You have let the politicians, media, and bloggers misdirect your attention. For this is much more than sexist, it is personalist. With due apologies to Gov. Palin's breasts, the real outrage here is the tacit (and widespread) belief that we should elect our President based on individual traits: charisma, speaking ability, gravitas, quick wit, and (in Obama's case) strikingly handsome looks.

Grow up. The truth is much simpler: the best predictor of Presidential policy-making is Party, not personality. Speeches come from people, actions come from party caucuses. This is not a horse race, it is a referendum on political philosophy.

We are a divided country in the scariest of ways: age. The older half of the Supreme Court is liberal: Stevens (88), Ginsburg (75), Breyer (70), Souter (68). The younger half is conservative: Roberts (53), Alito (58), Thomas (60), Scalia (72), Kennedy (72). You do the math.

Enter the dreaded Independent Voter. Our election will be decided by people who are not merely ambivalent about their own views on public policy questions, but are hostile to the very idea of partisanship itself. They base their vote not on a rational analysis of probable future Presidential decisions, but on individual (and largely irrelevant) personality quirks. Obama sounds like the voice of a new generation. McCain looks like the wisdom of age.

Get real. Turn off the hype and read the 2008 Democratic and Republican Party Platforms. For those who don't like to read, here is my one-line summary of each:

Democrats:
political    rights  of the individual
economic power of the group
Republicans:
economic rights  of the individual
political    power of the group

If this choice is not clear enough for you, then maybe you should just vote for the one with the hottest bod. I can think of worse ways to pick a Presidential candidate.

Republican Hypocrisy in Overdrive

2008-09-05T04:32:00.000-07:00

salon.com highlights a hilarious Comedy Central video serving up Republican hypocrits (including your favorite and mine, Karl Rove) contradicting themselves.

It is a must-see for anyone who still believes that Republican hacks have gotten on board the Straight Talk Express. Maybe these people should stop trying to help John McCain before he bolts the GOP entirely!

John McCain is AWOL

2008-09-05T03:18:00.000-07:00

Poor John McCain.

He is now officially Absent Without Leave from the culture wars surrounding him on all sides. He persists in an irrational delusion that political division is based on political egos, rather than on rational and profound disagreements on the nature of our social contract: individual rights vs. group obligations, political freedom vs. economic liberty, role of religion in politics and society, constitutional guarantees vs. public safety, freedom of expression vs. cultural comfort, parental vs. societal interests in the protection and upbringing of children. The list goes on and on, with perhaps two-thirds of Americans ready to shout at the top of their lungs over each of these issues.

Who is this Solomon John McCain to settle our legitimate disputes by dividing the baby in two? Maybe on tax policy, but what about gay marriage? Reproductive freedom? Separation of church and state? These are land mines in American society. You can steer left or right of them, but compromise will end badly.

John McCain was short on specifics in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. I will add my own commentary [in brackets], pointing out where he and I do not see eye to eye. I find myself siding with the Christian Right on this one: there is a culture war going on, and John McCain is nowhere to be found. For indeed, managing this war is the true role of the modern American Presidency, and there is no room for appeasement.

I'm grateful to the President [whose name he dares not utter here...] for leading us in those dark days following the worst attack on American soil in our history and keeping us safe from another attack many thought was inevitable; [and for no other reason?]....And I'm grateful to the 41st president [whose name he also strangely fails to speak aloud] and his bride of 63 years, and for their outstanding example of honorable service to our country. [Shockingly, he fails even to allude to Ronald Reagan, the very founder of the modern Republican coalition!]

Finally, a word to Sen. Obama and his supporters. We'll go at it over the next two months. That's the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration. [Utter silence descends on the audience here] Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other. We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. No country ever had a greater cause than that. And I wouldn't be an American worthy of the name if I didn't honor Sen. Obama and his supporters for their achievement. [So McCain is saying that the vast majority of hard-core Republican supporters are unAmerican? No wonder the audience went silent...]

And I've found just the right partner [actually, the Christian Right found her for you] to help me shake up Washington, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. She has executive experience and a real record of accomplishment. She's tackled tough problems like energy independence and corruption. She's balanced a budget, cut taxes and taken on the special interests. She's reached across the aisle and asked Republicans, Democrats and independents to serve in her administration [does this remind you of a certain former "compassionate conservative" governor?] . She's the mother of five children. She's helped run a small business, worked with her hands and knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments and health care and the cost of gasoline and groceries. [Oh, and did I also mention in passing that she is a fundamentalist Christian, a card-carrying member of the NRA, and an anti-choice extremist, none of which are presumably worth mentioning here?]

She knows where she comes from [rural America, tired of urban domination] and she knows who she works for [God].

I'm very proud to have introduced our next vice president to the country. [Actually, she and the country seem to have gotten very well acquainted without his mediation, seeing as he apparently chose her only days before her nomination].

You know, I've been called a maverick [or loose cannon, if you are less charitable. My friend Brendan reminds me that an honest politician is "one who stays bought"!]; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. Sometimes it's meant as a compliment and sometimes it's not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you. [Who exactly is the "you" here? A solid majority of Americans have a strong affiliation with a political party that they feel does authentically represent their "special interests".]

I've fought corruption, and it didn't matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. [There are roughly three main Republican themes: God, Country, and Wealth. Care to guess which one has recently fallen out of favor?]

I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq, when it wasn't a popular thing to do. [I have to give him this one! Clinton failed this test of conviction with her once-bitten-twice-shy triangulation strategy.] And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war [leaving aside of course the larger question whether it was wise for the Republicans to have started the Iraq War in the first place.]

I fight for Americans. I fight for you [not in my name, please...] I fight for Bill and Sue Nebe from Farmington Hills, Michigan, who lost their real estate investments in the bad housing market. [Ok, I confess this example leaves me dumbfounded. Are we really to feel sorry for a (presumably) working-class couple that borrowed money they couldn't pay back to gamble on a get-rich-quick scheme flipping houses? Say it ain't so, John!]

I fight for Jake and Toni Wimmer of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Jake works on a loading dock, coaches Little League, and raises money for the mentally and physically disabled. Toni is a schoolteacher, working toward her master's degree. They have two sons; the youngest, Luke, has been diagnosed with autism. Their lives should matter to the people they elect to office [as opposed to my life, which doesn't? Just making sure...]. They matter to me [which is why he will do what exactly for them? Increase federal spending on autism research? Pray for their souls? Feature them in his acceptance speech?]

I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger [while George W. Bush searched in vain for his lost Veto stamp?]. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both (!) parties and Sen. Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. [Both parties? Flash quiz: which party received the most donations from Big Oil? Guesses anyone? Actually, no need to guess. Here is the breakdown for the last twelve years. Notice a pattern?

Donations to both political parties by the oil and gas industry
Year	Democrats	Republicans	%
2008	25%	74%
2006	18%	82%
2004	19%	80%
2002	20%	80%
2000	21%	78%
1998	23%	76%
1996	23%	75%

I think we can guess where 3/4 of the corruption has gone.]

We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles. [I assume by "we" he means "the Republican Party"?]

We're going to change that. [You will have plenty of time to do this while serving some well-deserved time-out in the penalty box.]

We're going to recover the people's trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics. [Excuse me? I will give you Reagan. But Lincoln and (Teddy) Roosevelt? Lincoln freed the slaves from the Dixiecrat bigots that fled the Dems in 1948 and whose fellow Southerners now make up a major constituency of the Republican party. Teddy Roosevelt set aside huge tracts of the West for preservation, not oil drilling. And he left the Republican party out of the same disgust that McCain must be feeling about now.]

We believe everyone [or maybe just American citizens?] has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential [except gays, who cannot get married, or atheists, whose potential is not God-given] from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We're all God's children and we're all Americans. [We pause while Mr. McCain clears this first with his Republican base...]

We believe in low taxes, spending discipline and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor [provided of course that you have nepotistic connections, access to capital, and the privilege of birth and race lotttery, good education, and a social safety net when risks fail].

We believe in a strong defense [i.e. America first], work, faith [in Christ], service, a culture of life [i.e. anti-choice but pro-death-penalty], personal responsibility, the rule of law [created by those in power], and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench [such as in Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, Lawrence v. Texas, and yes, Roe v. Wade. Should I go on?]

We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities. [Who doesn't, unless their prejudices should infringe on my constitutionally guaranteed rights.]

We believe in a government that unleashes the [economic, not social] creativity and initiative of Americans. Government that doesn't make your choices for you [unless God commands it], but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself [unless your choice is to terminate your pregnancy or get married to a same-sex partner].

I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can [across the board, so the very rich get most of the benefit]. My opponent will raise them [albeit on the richest 5% of Americans]....I will cut government spending [unlike his own party currently in power, which has increased federal spending more than did any previous President and Congress ever before]. He will increase it [no doubt to pay the trillion dollars (!) that the Iraq war will cost the U.S. Treasury].

My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor. [Actually, a bureaucrat does stand between me and my doctor. He is a bean counter for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of California, and it took six months and testimonials of medical necessity from two oral surgeons, a primary physician, an orthodontist, and a dentist, along with implied threats of a lawsuit, to prevail on appeal in a routine and very necessary lower jaw surgery authorization. Lucky for me, there is no government bureaucrat interfering in this relationship!]

Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second-highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas [and possibly even trickle down to the masses enough to maintain their political support]. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 will improve the lives of millions of American families [though not mine]. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit.

For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower-paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage. [Is this a loan or a gift? Guarantee of work? Wage supports? What party does McCain belong to again?]

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. [Not the right to vote? The right to sit on any bench and drink from any water fountain? The right not to be imprisoned without due process of law or even habeas corpus? The right to be presumed innocent until found guilt in a court of law?]

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school [unless there is no room, which is certain to be the case in cities, or unless there are no other schools, in more rural areas]. Some may choose a private one [i.e. religious one or government-supported home-schooling, since non-religious private schools are too expensive to be funded by vouchers anyway]. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity. [Unless of course, other societal causes of academic failure predominate, such as broken homes, indifferent parents, peer pressure, lack of a home reading culture, single parents, urban violence, hunger, poverty, language difficulties, migrant parents forced to move constantly in search of work or, in the case of undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children, to avoid being deported.]

Sen. Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm president, they will. [What unions? Teachers have a much higher approval rating than politicians do. And the main bureaucracy in education is controlled at the local level by school boards (with the one major exception of special education, which has strong and expensive government mandates, but perhaps Gov. Palin wants to remove these?) Maybe schools should be run directly from Washington? Or maybe the control desired is not quality but content of instruction, with local freedom to teach creationism or religion with taxpayer dollars?]

My fellow Americans, when I'm president, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. [No more bribing Egypt $1.3 billion per year to honor a peace treaty with Israel, incidently a lot less money than we would have to give to Israel to defend itself otherwise.] We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. [Goverment subsidies?] We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now [with the oil sold at world prices to China. After all, these are private oil companies, or does McCain plan to nationalize them?] We will build more nuclear power plants [although the economics of this are far from clear: according to Robert D. Glynn Jr., the chairman of Pacific Gas & Electric in San Francisco, "To order a new nuclear plant today, you'd have to be crazy."] We will develop clean coal technology [no such thing]. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex-fuel [water and crop-intensive], hybrid and electric automobiles [solutions for global warming perhaps, but not energy independence. Oh, did someone forget the most obvious and effective measures of all: conservation, higher fuel efficiency standards, investment in public transportation, and yes, inflating your tires?]

Sen. Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power [no he doesn't, nor does anyone else. According to Gov. Palin herself, such a goal is not possible for a country as energy-hungry as the US: "Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already."]. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. [Maybe he should check with his Vice-Presidential nominee, who had just gotten done saying the night before (and rather snidely too, if I can say that without being accused of sexism or "media bias"): "what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?"] It's an ambitious plan, but Americans are ambitious by nature, and we have faced greater challenges. It's time for us to show the world again how Americans lead. [Shouldn't we make sure the rest of the world wants to follow? Maybe we should take the log out of our own eye before leading the Europeans, who are way out in front of us on environmental policy.]

We have dealt a serious blow to al-Qaida in recent years [in Afghanistan, although they are regrouping while we fritter our money and troops away in Iraq, where al-Qaida never had a real presence]. But they are not defeated, and they'll strike us again if they can. Iran remains the chief state sponsor of terrorism and on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons [aided by our loss of credibility over WMD in Iraq]. Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth [a little Republican irony here] and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals [yet enjoy strong popular backing after the kleptocracy we helped to create after the fall of the Soviet Union] and the obligations of a responsible power [i.e. they want to project their power as we do ours]. They invaded a small, democratic neighbor [which awkwardly has its own domestic ethnic division and oppression, reflected in the nationalist drive to keep "Georgia for the Georgians"] to gain more control over the world's oil supply [as opposed to say the Saudis?], intimidate other neighbors [as we do with sanctions], and further their ambitions of reassembling the Russian empire. And the brave people of Georgia need our solidarity and prayers [but not South Ossetians, Abkhazians, Kurds, Roma, or other stateless people?]. As President, I will work to establish good relations with Russia so we need not fear a return of the Cold War [which naturally would require that both sides' needs are satisfied]. But we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people.

We face many threats in this dangerous world, but I'm not afraid of them. [Then George W. Bush has not done his job!] I'm prepared for them. I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better [like give up its lust of multibillion dollar cold-war-era weapon systems?], and what it should not do [like nation building or regime change?]. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it [I'm glad you're omniscient. Just please don't look into Putin's soul, ok?]. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't. I know how to secure the peace. [Here's one way: strengthen our alliances instead of alienating them with "old Europe" talk.]

We need to change the way government does almost everything.... [Whoa! A little reality check is in order. You have a country sharply divided along religious, regional, political, and class faultlines, with an aging baby boomer majority population interested in investing in only two things (their own retirement and health care) and a crumbling infrastructure resulting from the lowest taxes by far in the developed Western World. Perhaps a little focus and less ambitious agenda might be more productive?]

The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you. [If only! It's what happens when group A and group B have profoundly (and often legitimately) differing views on our social contract, and elect political representatives that attempt to accurately reflect the views of their constituents.]

Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as president. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Sen. Obama does not. [Actually, we all have scars from eight years of an Administration catering to 51% of the population, with reckless contempt for the other 49%. It is a little unfair to expect bipartisanship to break out until we get our 8 years in office to undo the damage. To the barricades...]

I've been an imperfect servant....And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God. [Truly, John, you had me 8 paragraphs ago. Let me stipulate here and now unequivocally how much respect I have for your personal sacrifice in Vietnam. I know of no one who disagrees with this statement. I will not even quibble with your having made this the dominant justification of your candidacy (along with the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington fantasy). I certainly have neither the standing nor the desire to refute it, but hope you will understand that I do not consider it sufficient reason to vote for you.]

If you find faults with our country, make it a better one [I intend to with my vote on Election Day]. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces [or Peace Corps, as I did!]. Become a teacher [as my husband did!]. Run for public office [can't, people won't vote for a gay atheist]. Defend the rights of the oppressed [like gays and lesbians?]. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier [though I doubt that Gov. Palin or her supporters will!].

I'm going to fight for my cause every day as your president. I'm going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank him: that I'm an American [also, God, thanks for making me a man, as the Arabs say, and decently well off and intelligent, and white, and having my education paid for by self-sacrificing parents, and all the other "privileges" I have You to thank for that make me better than lesser mortals in the hierarchy of divine favoritism], a proud citizen of the greatest country on Earth [surely everyone on Earth can agree on this!], and with hard work, strong faith [in a Christian God] and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me.

Trust me, John McCain. I will fight with you. With this blog, with my vote, with my very soul. Your party platform is toxic to my being, its beliefs anathema to my own. Your affiliation with the GOP has already established my opposition to your cause.

Not to worry. Your inspired choice of Gov. Palin will more than compensate you with lots of passionate new friends you never knew you had. Enjoy them with God's blessings. And if you should win, please believe me...I wish you a long and healthy Presidency!

1 out of 3 Evangelicals votes NO!

2008-09-03T23:35:00.000-07:00

The Field Poll, a California-based independent and non-partisan survey of public opinion established in 1947, released its findings on July 18, 2008 regarding the California Proposition 8 which if passed would overturn the California Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The question the Field Poll asked was:

(As you know) Proposition 8 is the “Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.” It amends the California constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 8, the Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment?

They found that among likely voters, 51% would vote no, with only 42% voting yes. If anything, this result understates the opposition, as it was conducted before the Attorney General reworded the official ballot proposition title from “Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment” to “Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry”, a change that makes explicit that voting yes implicates the yes-voter in being party to forcibly divorcing currently legally married couples, a position that may put moderate voters off. I take this as a good omen, despite the grotesquely large sum of money recently contributed by carpetbaggers from Ohio in support of the anti-gay Yes on 8 campaign.

Once the fear subsided of being forcibly divorced from my husband (yes, we do use that word), I took a closer look at the fine print and found something even more remarkable: 1 in 3 California Evangelical Christians opposes Proposition 8. Assuming that the vast majority of Evangelicals personally oppose homosexuality, this is a remarkably live-and-let-live approach to a large minority among them. Perhaps they are honoring (what they consider to be) the words of Jesus himself to “remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:5). Given how much dead wood has accumulated in the Evangelical centers of power that have aligned themselves to an unseemly extent with the Republican party, this is wise advice.

Advice that I too will try to heed when questions arise about their right not to be personally coerced into actively participating in activities they hold to be wrong (as here). I think that at least in California, we have sufficient support now that we can afford to leave Christians in peace on this issue. I for one find no grace (or victory) in insisting on a coup de grâce. After all, as it is written, “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). Maybe one day they will decide to stop persecuting us of their own volition.

Do it for me, Lord!

2008-09-02T22:39:00.000-07:00

Here (thanks to the Huffinton Post) is a very revealing video of how scarily God-oriented Sarah Palin is (or rather, how strangely Palin-oriented she thinks God is). It is a video recording of her (while and as Governor) speaking at her church. She clearly believes that God is on her side and that of the natural gas industry:

I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get the gas line built, so pray for that.

While you do, pay particular attention to the follow-on words of her pastor (Ed Kalnins, senior paster of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, with Gov. Palin on stage and seemingly fully onboard with the message), putting into context her Joan-of-Arc mission to bring the natural gas pipeline to the good (and rich!) State of Alaska, and to America itself, casting it in eschatological terms (who knew natural gas was such a life-and-death issue?)

Please pray for Sarah...there were some things about the natural resources, about the State, there were some things that God wants to tap into to be a refuge for the lower 48, and I believe Alaska is one of the refuge States, come on you guys, in the last days, and hundreds and thousands of people are going to come to the State to seek refuge, and the Church has to be ready to minister to them, Amen?

It is a comfort that when, out of almost 300 million Americans, the few hundred or thousand that survive Armageddon take refuge in Alaska, there will be a natural gas pipeline to provide for their needs.

At the end of the video, the pastor emeritus who comes on stage to pray for Ms. Palin broke down crying (with joy?), presumably because God has placed a True Christian at the head of Alaska's government.

Only at this moment did it finally (!) sink in for me that this is not (at some deep level) a game, act, or con. Even devout once-a-week Christians are going to have to put aside their compartmentalized religious sensibilities long enough to be able to appreciate how literal and immediate this End-of-days mentality and sense of favored-by-God entitlement to Gov. Palin's most ardent supporters (and presumably to her as well). Catholics used to praying for World Peace and strong families are going to have difficulty understanding how God's personal intervention can (apparently) be summoned to complete something as petty and partisan as a gas pipeline, and why this would not be an immorally selfish act even if true.

There seems to be no moral or ethical concerns among these people about God intervening on Earth on their personal behalf. Not in a "God, please let me win the lottery" sort of way, but in a "God, I actually believe that you can make me win the lottery, and with full knowledge that my winning means that others equally worthy will not win, please favor me (over them) with this."

Forget that this self-directed intercessionary praying is (to my Catholic-raised ears) a profoundly childish and selfish motivation. After all, I fully trust that any god worthy of the name would know better than I how best to allocate lottery funds (or natural gas) to work divine will, and trying to steer that will towards me (or my state or country) is nothing short of perverse. And even though I don't believe that people can turn invisible and walk through walls and rob banks undetected, still I can still form a moral judgment on anyone expressing such a desire.

And yet numerous Catholics will still vote for her, because they just really truly deep-down cannot actually believe that it is just this simple, that she really believes this, that what you see is what you get. That God really is on her side, and that she is absolutely convinced that this is so. And if by some stroke of luck McCain/Palin should win, she (and they) will believe that it was God, and not the voters, that put her into power.

I will not sink to her level by "praying that God keep her out of the White House", but if others have more pull than I with the Godhead, feel free to work your magic. After all, why should Gov. Palin have all the fun?

Can I get an Amen, someone?

Guilty until proven innocent?

2008-06-13T21:17:00.000-07:00

How reassuring to hear what presidential contender John McCain thinks of our system of checks and balances. McCain attacked the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court preserving the writ (or as I pronounce it, right) of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay over the populist pandering of Congress and arrogating machinations of the all-powerful Unitary Executive.

NPR quotes McCain as saying that the law that he helped write “made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, they are not citizens, they do not have the rights of citizens”, oblivious to the fact that it is the very status of “enemy combatant” at issue, and whether the defendents have a right to dispute this allegation in a non-kangaroo court.

Not to be outdone in the inanity, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., went even further:

What happened yesterday was unprecedented. Americans are going to be shocked to find that that mastermind of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now has the same legal standing as an American citizen.

And the omniscient Senator knows this...how? Last I checked, the question of whether Mr. Mohammed is in fact a “mastermind of 9-11”, or an American citizen for that matter, is one of those vexing questions that are decided in this country by jury trials, not Senators or Presidential wannabes.

Or did someone go and amend the Constitution when I wasn't looking...

Gay Marriage comes to California

2008-05-15T11:44:00.000-07:00

Eat, drink, and be married!

The California Supreme Court has spoken, albeit by the slimmest of margins. The vote was 4-3, (with one dissenting opinion blasting the ruling as an “exercise in legal jujitsu”) but that is all it takes! The full opinion is 172 pages long, of which the majority opinion is 120 pages.

The concluding paragraph of the California Supreme Court majority opinion is uncompromising:

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their 12 1 jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

GEORGE, C. J. [Chief Justice]

WE CONCUR:
KENNARD, J.
WERDEGAR, J.
MORENO, J.

There is no further judicial appeal possible, even to the U.S. Supreme Court, but expect the inevitable state constitutional amendment initiative this November to bring back our generation's Plessy v. Ferguson. Although most of the money will come from out-of-state, it is the voters of California who will decide, and in a Presidential year with Barack Obama on the ballot, I hope we can drive a stake through this vampire once and for all.

ACLU's finest hour

2008-04-03T23:29:00.000-07:00

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

— The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

“One of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”

— John Adams, on his decision to defend British soldiers charged with killing Americans in the Boston Massacre

For these reasons, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have taken on the task of assembling defense teams to be available to assist in the representation of those Guantánamo detainees who have been charged under the Military Commissions Act, subject to the detainees' consent.

— American Civil Liberties Union, 3 April 2008

On becoming a Peace Corps Volunteer, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

I continue to honor that oath in becoming a monthly contributor to the ACLU and publicly supporting its John Adams Project to uphold the once widely cherished belief that the right to a fair and speedy trial is enjoyed by all detainees, not just the popular ones.

How far we have fallen that this premise should be the least bit controversial.

Not all flames smoke

2007-06-18T11:25:00.000-07:00

Seems the word “fag” means a cigarette in merry old England. Who knew?

My friend and fellow blogger Brendan turned me on to a raucous (though fortunately not coprophagous, despite the unsettling title) blog from across the pond, and after posting only two small comments, I have been overwhelmed with praise!

This cannot be a good thing: the ego boost fleeting, the addiction to praise driving me to ever higher cleverness, til last I am reduced to the base status of pontificating pundit. I can even now hear the sirens singing...

Procrastinational President Unaspiring

2007-06-04T00:08:00.000-07:00

Wordsmith award of the day goes to (the speechwriter for) Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who while deriding Bush's feint to the left in announcing plans for a new effort against global warming, accuses Bush of deliberating starting an initiative he knew he could not complete:

“A better way of putting what the White House said yesterday is that the president's goals are not aspirational, they're procrastinational.”

Excerpt taken from the June 3, 2007 article in the LA Times by Maura Reynolds titled A sudden barrage of ideas from Bush.

Extortion at the World Bank

2007-05-17T16:16:00.000-07:00

It takes a man with powerful friends to shake down the World Bank. For those with an Orwellian taste for newspeak, check out the official statements of Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank board of directors regarding his resignation.

For those with a weaker stomach, they say respectively:

“I'll leave if you beg me to stay, otherwise I'll stay and make your life a living hell!”
“Love you, mean it. Now get the hell out!”

Why they bother I'll never know. Who is fooled by this theater of the absurd?

My favorite Wolfowitz quote is:

Finally, I want to say a special word of thanks to the many people inside and outside the Bank who have publicly or privately expressed their support for me and asked me to stay. One of the most moving was a phone call I received from the democratically elected President of a Sub-Saharan African country. It was a private call so I will not quote him by name. But he thanked me for doing so much, in his words, to make the World Bank an institution “that listens, that cares, that understands and that takes action.” If that is true, and if I have “touched the hearts of Africans,” as he told me, then the last two years have been worth it.

Honi soit qui bien y pense!

Unrequited Love

2007-05-13T23:01:00.000-07:00

Because I liked you better
  Than suits a man to say,
It irked you, and I promised
  To throw the thought away.
To put the world between us
  We parted, stiff and dry;
‘Good-bye,’ said you, ‘forget me.’
  ‘I will, no fear’, said I.
If here, where clover whitens
  The dead man's knoll, you pass,
And no tall flower to meet you
  Starts in the trefoiled grass,
Halt by the headstone naming
  The heart no longer stirred,
And say the lad that loved you
  Was one that kept his word.
        A.E. Housman, More Poems, XXXI

He would not stay for me, and who can wonder?
  He would not stay for me to stand and gaze.
I shook his hand, and tore my heart in sunder,
  And went with half my life about my ways.
        A.E. Housman, Additional Poems, VII

Who shall guard the guardians themselves?

2007-05-04T02:04:00.000-07:00

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Juvenal, ca. 100 AD

Our Constitution has not been this stretched since the Civil War. The current President once famously looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and declared him a "good man", who has ever since been steadily dismantling democracy in Russia. The President has himself put suspects in Guantanamo, beyond the reach of our courts, because they were apparently self-evidently "bad men". Now apparently numerous of these "bad men" are being released without a trial.

It is time to admit that no one, saint or sinner, can look into another's eyes and see anything of value. Due process, habeas corpus, public trial by jury, right to face the accuser, right to see evidence, right to competent and independent representation, these are the best we can do. Torture, kidnapping (rendition), and secret detention are being shamefully associated with our country.

America is at its best in hope, and at its worst in fear. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, words this President might have done well to utter on 9/11 (instead of "bring it on!"). Congress can end the fear and start the long process of stitching our Constitution back together. Hope, not fear, will overcome our enemies and win back our friends.

The U.S. Congress must immediately undertake the following:

Restore the right of habeas corpus and oversight by the Federal courts over all prisoners in U.S. custody once removed from an active battlefied.
Declare categorically that torture is not only illegal, but repugnant and anti-American, and that any official engaging in it can face criminal prosecution.
Close the internment camps at Guantanamo which are seen overseas as the Abu Graib of the West.
Restore the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law open to the public.
Restore the balance of our tripartite government, which has tilted perilously far to the Executive. Declare in a Congressional resolution that Executive "signing statements" are vacuous: it is the Congress that legislates, not the President.
Denounce, from whatever quarter or political party, false charges of insufficient patriotism or support for the troops in combat. Such McCarthyite chicanery is foolhardy and dangerous when weighty matters of national importance are discussed: this is truly the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Remind the people that civilians run our military, not a junta, and that it is not only their right but their duty to question the strategy and direction of war, set benchmarks for Iraq's government — and for our own.
Refuse to confirm out of principle any interim appointment not submitted for Senate confirmation at the first opportunity.
Assume the burden of oversight that our Constitution demands of the Congress.

Members of Congress, you should take Sen. Robert Byrd's advice and keep a small copy of our Constitution in your vest pocket at all times, so that you will be reminded daily what it is that "shall guard the guardians themselves", for mere mortals are not up to the task. You can show your respect to this great document by passing the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. This issue is too important for partisanship. Please act now before it becomes one, or our red/blue population will start to tear apart.

Our troops are fighting to defend the Constitution against foreign enemies. We must do our part to defend it against domestic ones. Only in working together will America again earn the admiration of the world. Our Constitution can unite the people. At these divisive times, it is the only thing that can. The alternate scenario, rounding up all the coins in circulation and scratching off the E pluribus unum motto, is too horrible to contemplate.

I am not usually a believer in the efficacy of petitions, but desperate times call for desperate belief-suspending. Please sign the ACLU petition to restore the right of habeas corpus.

Ô Centrafrique, Reprends ton droit au respect!

2007-04-09T11:16:00.000-07:00

The Central African Republic gets no respect.

Its founding president Barthélemy Boganda (a Catholic priest) attempted to unite the newly dissolved colony of French Equatorial Africa into a post-colonial state, but had to settle for the smallest and poorest part in 1958 after the the other parts of the former FEA refused to take part.

The CAR has since been all but forgotten about by the rest of the world. It is written about so rarely (even in African publications such as Jeune Afrique) that almost no American even knows where it is (though its very name describes the location!) It is the hidden jewel north of Congo (formerly Zaire), south of Chad, west of Sudan (sharing a border with the Darfur region), and east of Cameroon, a beautiful and well-kept secret of a country of over 100 tribes living more or less peacefully together, albeit under the strong neocolonial influence of the French.

Having been so long ignored, it is sad that the first major article about the CAR in the New York Times, titled “Wedged Amid African Crises, a Neglected Nation Suffers”, describes the almost inevitable decline of law and order long seen elsewhere in Africa. It would not be absurd to see this as the logical consequence of the slow decline of French interest (and money) in the region. Every crisis in Central Africa has started with the same common trigger: soldiers not getting paid.

I was fortunate enough to spend two years there teaching secondary mathematics in the U.S. Peace Corps. At the time, everyone but the French decried the none-too-subtle hand of French neocolonialism, and we all believed that once they left, the CAR would “retake its right to respect”, as the national anthem urges. It was in hindsight perhaps a bit naive. I guess we will find out whether Camus was right that it is better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees, though in fairness I did not see anyone on their knees literally or figuratively while the French were there.

The strangest part of all this is that the most salient feature of (southern) CAR culture was laughter. They were constantly telling (and retelling) the same jokes, snapping their fingers, boasting in crescendoing hyperbole. If some wali [woman] gave me lip over something I was supposedly doing wrong, I would just smile and say, "Mama" like a mischievous child, and her anger would melt and we would both burst out laughing and follow up with the obligatory and ubiquitous slapping handshake, each contributing one half of a snap with the middle finger (harder than it sounds). The louder the snap, the better the bond. I never got it before, but you just can't stay mad at someone whose hand you have just clasped, rubbed, and snapped in one graceful motion. The snap just hangs in the air like a moment of clarity.

Being from German stock, I wasn't raised with excessive laughter, and never felt authentic in this ritual (which I dutifully participated in anyway to ease my stay there), but now I miss it. When I tell the same joke more than once to the same person here, I get a groan instead of a laugh. I think I like the Central African way better.

I hope when the turmoil stops, Central Africans will still be able to laugh. It is after all one of their greatest strengths. I am glad I was there to hear it firsthand.

Thanks to Brendan Keefe for sending me the NY Times link above.

At least Ann Coulter would say it to my face!

2007-03-07T19:36:00.000-08:00

If Ann Coulter should ever call me fag,
She'll be denounced, although she won't have lied,
A bigot's claims are easy to ignore,
Thus vainly thinking she's a witless hag,
The merits of her argument untried.
Who's also made a faggot of Al Gore,

John Edwards she has called a faggot too,
"I'm not a fag but even if I were..."
From victim to accomplice she has turned
In four small words, poor Johnny boy is through,
A straight man he must avidly aver
to be, lest by the South unfairly spurned.

"I'm not a fag", her victim proud denies
Misplaced rebuke containing deeper truth
Revealed is Liberal hypocrisy
"Good thing that I am not" he thus implies,
Her drive and wit perverted and uncouth,
Yet drives me to accuse society

Hell bent on saving us weak thin-skinned gays
From seeming slander when some bigot call
Us fag, when faggot's what we truly are
I'm proud of it and in so many ways
O'ercome oppression, learned to stand up tall
From so far down and risen up so far

Soft bigotry and shame but not from Ann
Comes slander camouflaged as friendship from
Our straight friends, closeted, afraid to say
That gay is fine until their son's a man
And brings his boyfriend home to parents dumb,
For this great freedom parents paved the way

Has wickedly repaid them with a curse.
Ann Coulter's feckless stabs do not compare
With those that truly wound us where we lie,
With foes like Coulter it would be much worse
To turn on friends whose real opinion dare
Not speak its name, whilst hard-earned ego die.

— Dan Weston, 7 March 2007

The structure of this ode is inspired by the brilliant Sonnet 138 of William Shakespeare. This is my own humble homage to his inimitable literary genius.

It is also an earnest plea to both our well-meaning limousine liberal friends and our own leaders in the gay-rights movement to spend less time protecting our feelings and more time defending our rights. It is the right to marry, not kind words from bigots, that I seek. Eyes on the prize!

Thought and Action

2007-02-21T18:57:00.000-08:00

I am a strong advocate of lifelong education, I just despair of ever putting it to good use. Some quotes for today:

You are on the battlefield. It is no longer the time to polish your gun, you must shoot.

— Stendhal as quoted by Prosper Mérimée, HB (1850). Translation taken from Simon L. Altmann, Rotations, Quaternions, and Double Groups, Ch. 15.

It is not society's fault that most men seem to miss their vocation. Most men have no vocation.

— George Santayana, The Aristocratic Ideal, Ch. IV. Quote taken from Wikiquote.

Those who act without thinking seek failure. Those who think without acting find it.

— Dan Weston, Rantings of a Crazed Lunatic, "Thought and Action".

To Boldly Go...

2007-02-01T11:53:00.000-08:00

Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: To explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before.

Should it not be to go boldly? Or perhaps even boldly to go?

The mission objectives are in reverse order of causality: first you go, then you seek, lastly you find and explore. The order must therefore be a crescendo of purpose. James Tiberias Kirk is the new Ulysses: To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Boldly is a not merely a descriptive, nor even restrictive, adverb. It is an essential adverb, the very purpose of going: not primarily to go anywhere, not even to go boldly, but to be bold in going.

A bad-ass James T. Kirk, powered by the finest starship a bad-ass Federation (read: America) can provide, is boldly going to show those aliens that there is a new bad-ass in town, bringing with him a New Galactic Order, along with a Prime Directive seemingly invented only so that when we (of course we, not Kirk anymore) break it — and are seen to be breaking it — aliens will understand that they cannot use legalistic casuistry to defeat us: the sword is truly mightier than the pen.

The phrase to boldly go where no man has gone before is written to hit the high notes when read aloud: bold, no, fore. We are the strong, we are the first. The man is in there to acknowledge (then dismiss) the obvious fact that every alien in the galaxy got there before us, but presumably none started out boldly. They slinked into space to conquer and pillage, or (worse) to join some larger community of soft-minded naifs who think that wishing makes it so.

We are no mere overlords like the Romulans, no mere warriors like the Klingons, no mere profiteers like the Ferengi, and certainly no mere prophets like the Vulcans. We are all this and more: we are missionaries.

We go boldly, but we do not go first. We follow the Macedonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Crusaders, the Spaniards, the British. We bring the Pox Americana.

Kirk dared to ask in Star Trek V: “What does God need with a starship?”. What indeed.

George W. Bush is the new James T. Kirk. Don't worry about splitting that bold infinitive. Go boldly forth, O Great Decider. It is, alas, what you do best.

Those Living In Glass Closets Should Not Throw Stones

2007-01-23T13:23:00.000-08:00

The outing of Grey's Anatomy star T.R. Knight by costar Isaiah Washington in an unprovoked outburst during a press conference at the 2007 Golden Globe Awards in which he falsely denied having called Knight a “faggot” during an argument on set, as well as the very moving sight of a visibly shaken T.R. Knight responding to it on Ellen Degeneres' show, has prompted me to dredge up an old e-mail exchange with my good friend Brendan Keefe, responding to his blog entry Closet Cases, itself commenting on a 20 Oct 06 Salon article titled The glass closet about the Mark Foley incident asking the question: “As Foleygate shows, Washington has a unique definition of what it means to be ‘openly gay.’ Should the media keep playing along?”

The answer is, accoring to Salon:

Within the mainstream media, the general standard for reporting on the sexual orientation of those who are at least partially closeted is a combination of newsworthiness and the guideline used by many gay activists, the "Barney Frank rule." Based on a rationale offered by Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay Massachusetts Democrat, when he threatened to release a list of closeted gay Republicans in 1989, the "Frank rule" maintains that outing is acceptable when done to a closeted public figure who is working against the interests of the gay community at large.

I agree with that rule. Here is my story:

When I was hired by a Defense subcontractor, in order to obtain a needed security clearance for my job, I was forced to go from office to office telling coworkers whom I hardly (at that time) knew that I was gay. This was presumably to forstall any risk to being “blackmailed.” It was deeply embarrassing for me to inflict my private life without context or prior acquaintance onto unsuspecting colleagues left speechless by my spontaneous need to confess. I might well have rung a leper's bell first to let them know I was coming.

Before you get too outraged, remember that the only reason I even had this “privilege” at all was because only months before, the gay news magazine Advocate featured a cover story by maverick columnist Michelangelo Signorile exposing the Pentagon's then active purging of gay personnel, even as one of its assistant secretaries of defense, Pete Williams, was gay and appeared to be accepted as such by then President George Bush and then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. The subsequent worldwide attention put Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney on the spot, who refused to fire his outed gay underling and offered the following explanation:

I have operated on the basis over the years with respect to my personal staff that I don't ask them about their private lives. As long as they perform their professional responsibilities in a responsible manner, their private lives are their business.

Cheney's statement upended overnight the witchhunt of civilian gays in the Executive Branch and, together with the timely intervention of the openly gay Mass. Rep. Barney Frank and the very strong support of my employer (for which I will be forever grateful), I got my security clearance and enjoyed seven very successful years in the Defense industry.

Now that I have switched to the Entertainment industry and want to marry my longtime “domestic partner”, as the State of California labels him, I am stopped by the likes of David Dreier.

According to Wikipedia, my fellow Californian David Dreier, Republican member of the United States House of Representatives since January 1981 representing the California's 26th congressional district, who at one time was so powerful that he was slated under Dennis Hastert for Majority Leader, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by President Clinton), against gay adoption, and against inclusion of homosexuality as a protected status in hate crime and employment discrimination legislation.

That track record has proven too much for his political opponents, gay rights groups, and most recently Hustler magazine, who have “outed” him as a homosexual.

Rep. Dreier has yet to comment on his sexual orientation. But Mr. Dreier, when you voted against my would-be marriage, you gave up your right to privacy. It is no longer your right to hide the truth, and no longer your privilege to be the first one to tell it.

LA Times: At Least He Didn't Have Sex!

2007-01-21T17:34:00.000-08:00

The Los Angeles Times has suffered these last three months a precipitous drop in quality. We now awaken each morning to garish fonts and tabloid fare. The front page, once the near-exclusive domain of international news, is awash with anecdotal “human interest” stories. The news is laced with editorial. The editorials seem designed more to shock than enlighten.

Today (21 Jan 2006) brings an editorial so morally strange that you need to read the entire piece to be sure it is not intended ironically. Titled Bush's fourth quarter, the Times argues: “As the president prepares for the State of the Union, the biggest issue facing the U.S. is his own credibility.”

Leaving aside the absurd subtitle that George Bush's personal credibility is somehow more important to Americans than the fact that our soldiers are dying in an unpopular war in Iraq, the paragraph below (clearly meant without irony) is a moral scandal:

To be fair, this is never an easy time for a second-term president. Bush is in the uncomfortable position of having to rely on the likes of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr to define his legacy. But then, at least he's not spending his days forced to deny having sex with "that woman," dealing with allegations that he illegally funneled arms to a Central American insurgency or fending off efforts to get at his incriminating tapes.

No sex for President Bush? Our country has lost over a trillion dollars (yes, that's about $10,000 for every tax-paying American) on George W. Bush's Iraq adventure. For that amount of money, I would have slept with him myself!

But not for the 3000+ troops who have died so far. That price would be much too high for me to live with. “When Clinton lied, no one died” started as a cute bumper sticker a few years ago. It doesn't seem so cute anymore.

That President Clinton was impeached and President Bush has not (yet) been is says a lot about American politics. That the Los Angeles Times editorial board has favorably compared the staggering and ongoing loss of blood and treasure with an Oval Office escapade by President Clinton says a lot about the L.A. Times.

Perhaps they should have put the editorial in all capital letters, like ‘DEVIL WINDS’ STOKE FATAL FIRE. It would have had a lot more credibility.

Atheists Hated More Than Gays...Ouch!

2006-12-24T16:52:00.000-08:00

In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, Americans said they believed in God by a margin of 92 to 6, only 2 percent answered "don't know", and only 37 percent said they'd be willing to vote for an atheist for president. (That's down from 49 percent in a 1999 Gallup poll, which also found that more Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist.)

The above depressing quote is taken from Newsweek's article of 11 Sept 2006 titled The New Naysayers by Jerry Adler that highlights the recent writings of three (in)famous modern atheists: Sam Harris ("The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason", "Letter to a Christian Nation"), Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion"), and Daniel C. Dennett ("Breaking the Spell").

Sam Harris' op-ed piece in today's LA Times (24 Dec 2006) titled 10 myths — and 10 truths — about atheism is a futher attempt to enlighten the superstitious.

There is a sad aura of futility that pervades all this. I think it works much better in humorous form. Take this excerpt from The Dilbert Blog:

If a guy shows up for a job interview and tells you his religion requires him to wear a stuffed rhino penis as a hat, you can show him the door. But if he says his prophet walked on water, or rode to heaven on a flying horse, you slap a name tag on his cubicle and hope for the best.

At least I can be content that as a GAL (Gay Atheist Liberal) who thinks that taxes are too low and wholeheartedly endorses Joycelyn Elders' suggestion that schools should consider teaching masturbation to students as a means to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, I must rank among the most despised of Americans.

Next to George W. Bush, of course!

California Supreme Court Reviews Same-Sex Marriage

2006-12-24T14:49:00.000-08:00

Demagogue has a post by Arnold P. California titled In California, Only Virgins Can Marry that skillfully analyzes the legal aspects the the California Supreme Court review of the ban on same-sex marriage and gets at the fundamental legal question still to be decided by the Court.

The argument, in short, is that since the Supreme Court is not free to second-guess the wisdom of the Legislature (or the initiative of voters), only to assess the legitimacy of the government's interest in marriage and the scope of its restrictions on it, the standard of review that the Court itself chooses to apply is crucial to the eventual decision. The Court may choose from:

Strict scrutiny: applies to fundamental constitutional rights or suspect classifications (such as race) and requires a compelling state interest furthered by narrowly tailored means.
Intermediate scrutiny: applies to such matters as sex-based classifications, restrictions based on status as a non-marital child, and affirmative action programs, and requires an important state interest furthered by substantially related means (a stricter version of this is called "heightened scrutiny").
Rational basis review: applies to everything else and requires only a legitimate state interest furthered by rational means.

Massachusetts has decided to use strict scrutiny, all others (including the Californa Court of Appeals) have settled on rational basis review.

I believe that, although there is room for the California Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court ruling under the rational basis test, they would be wrong to do so. Like blacks, gays have suffered violent and invidious discrimination. Unlike blacks, gays continue to suffer de jure discrimination. It is irrational to conclude that discrimination against blacks is suspect and deserves strict scrutiny yet discrimination of gays does not. It is time to recognize that sexual orientation (and gender identity, when a relevant case comes up) are “suspect classifications” in California and deserve strict scrutiny.

It is worth remembering that religious belief is intrinsically irrational (i.e. beyond the reach of the scientific method in assessing its validity), and though the public has a protected right to believe in it, the Court has a duty not to. Religion cannot justify bigotry, no matter how widely held.

And yet, and yet. The Justices, having no army of their own, must trust that the pen is mightier than the sword. It is naive to believe that they do not worry from time to time about running out of ink...

German is so much easier than French!

2006-12-22T14:43:00.000-08:00

My friend Brendan sent me a link about how hard the French elite work at translating new English computer jargon into French.

Why can't they be more like Germans? Believe it or not, the following is written in German!

Weil diese Shareware meinen Personal-Computer mit einem Virus infizieren kann (obwohl sie Virusfrei garantiert ist), muss ich zuerst ein Backup auf Diskette machen und Antivirus-Software installieren. Das Diagnoseprogramm wird verifizieren, dass bei der Hardware (Keyboard, Monitor, Maus, Graphikkarte, Scanner, CD-ROM) alles OK ist, dann neu booten und ein neues Systempasswort eingeben. Bei Internetproblemen ist auch ein neues Netzwerkkabel nötig. Ich bin kein Hacker, aber Multimedia, Multitasking, und C++-Programmieren habe ich schon gelernt. Englisch leider noch nicht...

Remember when French was the international language?

Public Radio Gone Astray

2006-12-21T13:58:00.000-08:00

Vacuity of the Call-In Format

I don't know much, but I know this...

A recent new addition to programming on public radio is the inclusion of listeners into the conversion (AirTalk with Larry Mantle and Talk of the Nation).

Advertising executives understand that we all want to feel important and often show "someone like us" in their ads. Even pornographic videos often have an average-looking guy with good-looking women (plural) to give us the impresssion that we not only could be that guy, but that we deserve to be (if only in our fantasies).

This instinct was epitomized in the repeated (usually ignorant, sometimes bigoted) comments that a sometime secretary of mine was wont to utter when irritated. They invariably started with "I don't know much, but I know this..." and were heavily laced with the sentiment that she was just as good as the elitist she was bashing. Hers was the hallmark of one eager to talk the talk without walking the walk, the inability to come to terms with her own intellectual laziness. It is not the paradigm that should encouraged in the listening audience of public radio.

There is an objective reality

Many conservative intellectuals feel comfortable dismissing the opinions of the uninformed outright (sometimes, regrettably, the valid opinions of the informed as well). Some centrist and most liberal intellectuals, quite the contrary, are unable (paralyzed perhaps by latent feelings of cultural superiority?) or refuse to defend the validity of the founding principle of the Enlightenment from which they sprang: that well-informed and dispassionate reasoning is much more effective at discovering the truth than uninformed or passionate appeals. It is the duty of the teacher to teach, the student to learn. Too many Liberals have sadly (and unwisely) conceded the word "duty" to Conservatives. Duty is the yin to Liberty's yang. To sit at the adult's table, you must act like an adult.

I believe it is the duty of public radio to select topics that will educate and ennoble society, to invite guests who will most competently frame the debate and support their position with logical reasoning, to air all sides of a question without imputing moral equivalence to them. Air time is a precious resource. Listeners spend an eternity on the phone to be heard. Such persistence takes passion. But as Aristotle once observed, "the law is reason, free from passion". Passionate people are less likely to make well-reasoned dispassionate arguments. It is difficult for an unprepared guest to make a valid point. It is nearly impossible for an unprepared listener with no particular expertise to do so.

Meritocracy, not democracy

Symphony conductors do not invite amateur musicians to sit in during a performance. Send the call-in format back to the AM dial, where its use is so effectively exploited.

This is one student who wants to be taught by a qualified teacher.

Dennis Prager's Broken Moral Compass

2006-12-20T14:26:00.000-08:00

Do I Care That It's Broken?

There's a nebulous line you cross without knowing it, such as when your marriage got stale or when you got old. One such line for me is whether the previous Dennis Prager (an articulate if misguided purist of "moral clarity" who challenged me to clarify my own views, like Larry Elder and Ward Connerly) has morphed into a new Dennis Prager (apologist for a morally indefensible stance out of political or ideological zeal, whom I usually ignore, like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Lou Dobbs).

My friend Brendan Keefe has a stimulating blog on this subject that I recommend that you read. It stimulated me to continue this discussion on my own blog. Without his blog entry, I would have written Dennis Prager off.

Instead, I will give Mr. Prager one last chance to clarify his thinking by clarifying my own.

Dennis Prager's Love Affair With the Christian Right

Before you read on, please read Dennis Prager's own words at America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on. It will ensure that you will not let me get away with a strawman or ad hominem attack. This topic is too important for that.

In summary, Keith Ellison (D-Minn) is the first person of Muslim faith to be elected to the U.S. Congress. He has announced his intention to place his hand on a copy of the Koran while taking his oath of office. Dennis Prager says he should not be allowed to do so:

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

Given that Dennis Prager is famous for his skewering of Democrats in power under Clinton for allegedly "losing their moral compass", it is strangely ironic that Prager has now lost his. The First Amendment clearly states that the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a Constitutional literalist, would have to admit that the use of a Bible cannot be prescribed by Congress, for it is already proscribed by the Constitution.

The more interesting question is:

Why does Dennis Prager advocate this?

I induce a chain of logic that seems to guide Dennis Prager's thinking:

Israel (and Jews) are under threat worldwide.
America is the strongest world power.
Protestant Christians are America's (potentially) strongest demographic.
Christianity is closer to Judaism than Islam.
Americans have always had (and continue to have) a strong dislike of Islam and distrust of Muslims.
American Christians have historically disdained Jews but have seen the error of their ways. Rapturists are now stronger supporters of Israel than many Jews.
Jews have historically mistrusted Christians, and continue to do so. They have had good reason to do so, given historic anti-Semitism which didn't start to turn around until the U.S. under Harry Truman (against the advice of his Cabinet) recognized the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 and continued to be fashionable until the 1980's.
???
Israel is secure under the protection of America. American Jews are more secure under the umbrella of American Protestant Christians.

What is the missing ??? in Dennis Prager's thinking (as best I can induce it)?

Hypothesis 1

Jews must embrace American Christians (especially Protestants) because of Christians' natural affinity with Jews in supporting Israel and religious practice (e.g. support for Israel, belief in the Old Testament).

What evidence is there for this?

Politically conservative Jewish organizations (such as Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation) have been increasingly joining the fight in favor of displaying Christian religious symbols (manger scene, crosses, bibles in swearing-in ceremonies)
Judeo-Christian has replaced Christian as the favored phrase for our underlying value system among conservatives
Dennis Prager has himself said so.

Hypothesis 2

Maybe he (secretly) thinks the opposite?

Jews must embrace American Christians (especially Protestants) — despite their religiously motivated patronizing and persistent attempts to convert them — because the greater threat is that the natural affinity with Jews of underdogs like secularists, gays, and minorities is destroying Judaism gradually through assimilation and moral relativism.

This line of reasoning assumes (hopes?) that an ongoing distrust among rank-and-file Jews and Christians will continue and act as a countervailing force against assimilation and plays into the fears of the majority of mainstream American Jews and rabbis, as articulated by Bradley Hirschfield, an Orthodox rabbi and vice president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, that Christianity, though neutral toward Judaism, is not good for Jews.

Does It Matter?

It is no accident that Jews were the first to head to the Deep South to defend the civil rights of African Americans, promote the voting rights of women and minorities, defend the institution of public education through public service in L.A. schools (despite the small Jewish population in schools), and embrace gay civil rights when Christians launched a culture war against them under the current President.

It is an ongoing and noble legacy that Dennis Prager seems eager to betray in his embrace of the moral majority. This is a fool's bargain. It is illogical to assume that hatred of Muslims in the heartland will translate into love of Jews.

Now that Dennis Prager has so ardently embraced Judeo-Christian ecumenism, perhaps he will take to heart the quote from Mark 8:26 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (KJV)

This is a question that American Jews should ask themselves before embracing the brave new world of Dennis Prager.

Fair and Balanced Reporting?

2006-12-19T11:12:00.000-08:00

Amoral, Misleading, and Uninformative

The Problem

I've long thought the self-important Fourth Estate has a serious misunderstanding of its mission. Neutered by false charges of Liberal Bias, the Truth Tellers have become the Debate Moderators. The goal of fair and balanced reporting is so amoral, misleading, and uninformative that it is no surprise to me that Fox News tried to trademark it.

If policy makers tell us we can't afford (for economic reasons) to clean up the mercury spewing out of coal-burning power plants or to slow down the rate of global warming, that's a newsworthy quote to stimulate public debate.

But when the news media dutifully repeat Bush Administration's prevarications about the role lobbyists played in rewriting scientific EPA findings to justify eviscerating the Clean Air Mercury Rule, or when they give airtime to a few industry-funded scientists to "balance" the less sexy but very real consensus of real scientists in 928 peer-reviewed journals that say we're destroying the planet, it's time for a news revolution.

The Solution

Such a revolution is already underway. Blogs and Wikipedia have been dismissed by presumably well-intentioned journalists who fear that misinformation that may go unvetted (and possibly their own status as gatekeeper as well?). This view implies that news providers see their calling primarily as that of spoon-feeding a witless and undercurious population of sheep with no sense of taste. The second part of this view is sadly all too often true. The first part, the role of the news media, is dangerously false.

In fact, this blog (and all blogs) have a higher calling than that. The purpose of blogging is not vanity or exhibitionism, nor to provide easy answers, but rather to democratize the pursuit of the scientific method (from wikipedia.org):

Define the question
Gather information and resources
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
Publish results

All news items should contain an objective review of the facts, a clearly disclosed point of view, and a suggestion for the reader on what to do with the data. Facts devoid of context are easily manipulated, misunderstood, or ignored.

There should also be references to help the lazy reader make up his or her own mind, not just accept hearsay. A blog without references is worthless and should be rejected as slander if false, plagiarism if true. I have tried to follow my own advice and believe that this same standard should be applied to all forms of journalism.

You Decide

To practice what I preach, I now direct you to two excellent sources below. If you have not visited them both, do not bother to post a reply.

Does Iraq need more debate?

The most articulate exposition of the above point I have ever read, an Op-Ed piece by Martin Kaplan published in today's (19 Dec 2006) Los Angeles Times, it is a call to arms and this blog is my small part in taking up the fight.

Source:

Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the USC Annenberg School, where he directs the Norman Lear Center (learcenter.org), December 19, 2006.

Proposition:

"We've had plenty of shouting matches on the war; what we need are better leaders and more capable media."

Conclusion:

"Maybe what we really need are leaders with more character, followers with more discrimination, deciders who hear as well as listen and media that know the difference between the public interest and what the public is interested in."

Balance vs. Bias in Journalism

Source:

National Public Radio, Talk of the Nation, April 17, 2006

Questions:

Does the ideal of balance distort the news?
What if there are more than two sides to the story — or the sides aren't equal?
And how is a reader supposed to wade through all the 'he said, she said?'

Answers by:

Jeffrey Dvorkin, executive director of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and former ombudsman at NPR
Brent Cunningham, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review
Jeff Jarvis, media executive and blogger at buzzmachine.com

You Will Know They Are Christians By Their Love Of...

2006-12-15T14:19:00.000-08:00

Capitalism?

The early Christians practiced communism!

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. Acts 4:32

There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. Acts 4:34-35

A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife's knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? Acts 5:1-3

Mixing Church and State?

Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here." John 18:36

[Jesus said] "Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the Roman coin. He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?" They replied, "Caesar's." 13 At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." Matt 22:19-21, Mark 12:16-17, Luke 20:24-25

Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Rom 13:7

Pledging Allegiance to the Flag?

"Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.' But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one." Matt 5:33-37

Revenge for 9/11 and the "War on Terror"?

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matt 26:52

"To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back." Luke 6:29-30

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. Matt 5:43-45

Telling Others How to Live?

"Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful. "Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven." Luke 6:36-37

"Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,' when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye." Luke 6:41-43

Public Displays of Righteousness?

"(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you." Matt 6:1-4

Prayer in Public, at Graduations, or in School?

"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you." Matt 6:5-6

"When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you." Matt 6:16-18

Speaking in Incomprehensible Tongues?

"In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him." Matt 6:7-8

"And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, "Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God." Acts 2:4-11

But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God. Cor 14:28

Not Drinking Alcohol?

[Jesus] said to them, "Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:18-20

"Stop drinking only water, but have a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent illnesses." Tim 5:23

The Literalness and Infallibility of the Bible?

As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, "Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?" Matt 24:3

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. "But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Matt 24:29-36

Samuel Johnson was right! belief in the Second Coming, like a second marriage, "is the triumph of hope over experience!"

All quotes are from the New American Bible.

The best champagne comes from California

2006-12-11T12:33:00.000-08:00

You heard me! I didn't forget to capitalize champagne or put a TM over it, and yes, it is made in California. And although I heartily agree that parmesan cheese does NOT come out of a green cardboard tube, it's not just because it's not made in Parma, but because it tastes like sawdust.

I do not agree with food libel or copyright laws. Food is not free speech, it is food. As Jesus himself is claimed to have said, "Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?" (NAB Matt 15:17) If it's good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for a Catholic country like France. But no...

In France in 2003, Lyon Mag, a French magazine was successfully sued and ordered to pay 300,000 euro for saying that Beaujolais was "un vin de merde"!

Luckily, sanity and free speech prevailed on appeal!

Oh, the next time some self-important sommelier pronounces "Meritage" like "mirage" with the "it" left out, let the fool know it actually rhymes with "heritage", and is a purely North American invention because the French wouldn't let us call it Bordeaux! Pomposity from French is tedious, but from Americans it's pathetic. I'll think I'll just stick with the Merlot.