Bryan Adams Blog

Up With Dander

I haven’t written much about the Bible class I’m taking this term. In part, it’s because my religious posts tend to attract the wacko internet audience, and I’m already up to my eyeballs in internet wackos, what with the whole name thing. But, even worse, I haven’t written about it because the subject matter tends to get me all mad and ranty, and then I have to look at pictures of Eva Longoria to calm myself down.

Today was a classic example: we heard a five-minute presentation from a classmate who’s writing his paper on why Lutherans should accept homosexuality. His central argument? Perhaps science will prove that it’s natural, and natural must mean that it’s OK.

I hate to be a science-snob-slash-internet-kiddie about this kind of thing, but, seriously, WTF? Leaving aside the question of whether science has ever proven that anything is "natural," what’s the point? Let’s take the best-case scenario: scientists find a gene that, when expressed, produces a gay phenotype, and when silent, produces a straight phenotype. What would that prove? That God makes genes and genes make gay people, so it must be ok to be gay? Genes also produce cancer, Eva Longoria’s rack, people with six toes – are all those things ok as well? Moreover, does our failure to find a gene controlling altruism, or charity, or Don Imus make those concepts less natural, and therefore immoral? Why would a genetic disease imply the intent of God but a behavioral problem imply sin – aren’t we eventually going to figure out that all our behaviors are only the result of some mis-firing neurons somewhere?

And before you shout an answer to any of my rhetorical questions at your monitor, allow me to interject: it doesn’t matter! Let’s take a patronizing little quiz.

Patronizing Little Quiz

1) Which of these Christians gets into heaven?
2) Which of these Christians gets the best spot in heaven, you know, the one right next to Eva Longoria, who’s totally an angel?
3) Which of these Christians does God like best?

Are you done? The answers were: all, none, and none. As long as these folks were all sincere in their belief in Jesus' divinity, it doesn’t matter what sins they committed! God doesn’t have a list of sins, with the big ones, like murder and gayness, up at the top and little ones, like loving Eva Longoria and saying that you only weigh 175, down at the bottom. They’re all sins, and they all condemn us to death. And when we believe in Jesus, we get to make him pay for all those sins, and all he really does to get us back is make Mel Gibson make the Passion so that we have to see it just to see how gross it is. It’s a pretty sweet deal if you buy it, so what’s with all the angst?

I guess my point is this: what's the point of all the morals stuff? Gays can get into heaven, Christians can get into heaven, and Eva Longoria is definitely getting into heaven. Can we all just agree to move on so that my classmate doesn’t have to write that awful paper?

To Me, The Funniest Part Of Flying

The plane lands, and the flight attendants remind everyone very sternly NOT TO GET UP until the plane has arrived at the gate, and that this is FOR YOUR SAFETY because the plane could stop UNEXPECTEDLY. Half an hour later, I'm trying to prevent truant teens from stealing my carryons while battling a smelly bearded man for ownership over four inches of a sweaty handrail in a subway car that's just made its third consecutive left turn at about 30mph.

You Know What I Blame This On The Breakdown Of? Society

You can't swing your arms these days without hitting four or five people who are upset about The Breakdown Of Society. To wit:

I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture about what they see on television sets, what they see in the movies, what they read in the newspapers, how they see the values of the county, what they see as the future for our country.
-- Republican Jerk Karl Rove

Sports reflect society, and society has become less civil. Social norms really are to some extent breaking down across a broad array of places. What you say, what you do, how you act no longer matters based upon any old social conventions.
-- NBA Commish David Stern

Much of our society has become like juveniles. We know right and wrong, but try to twist it around to do what we want - and if that behavior pays off, we'll keep doing it.
-- Horrible person Laura Schlessinger

I have an idea about how to quell this rising tide of moralism. But first, I have to outline my view of the problem.

To me, the whole phenomenon is captured perfectly by Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Horrible game. The player is an aspiring gangster, and the whole goal of the game is to expand your criminal empire through increasingly serious violations of the law. You kill innocent bystanders for money. You kill competing criminals for power. You sleep with hookers for health points and then run them over for money. In the instruction book, the triangle button is simply labeled "carjack."

It is also the most fun video game. Ever.

I mean, seriously. You're driving around, you're whacking your enemies, you're earning big cash, you're using all these sweet weapons -- it's awesome. I ended up giving it to my sister because I loved it so much, I couldn't stop playing. And I won't buy the new one until I know I have hours to play it. It's that cool.

And that's the problem, right? Immoral things are cool. Everyone wrings their hands over the Desperate Housewives intro to Monday Night Football ... and yet, Desperate Housewives is the most watched show on Sunday nights. William Safire called Janet Jackson's unleashed hooter the most significant political moment of the year ... and TiVo said it was the most rewound moment in the history of the device. James Gandolfini says that the violence on The Sopranos turns his stomach ... and yet, he's made millions as its star. We're a bunch of Arthur Dimmsdales, scourging ourselves in the closet while getting it on with Hester.

But you have to feel for the scolds, because their lifestyle -- rectitude -- sucks. You see this highly sexualized society where good looking people are having all of these consequence-free sexual experiences, and you've chosen to stay out of it. But it's problematic because you're human like everyone else, and you'd like to hit it with Eva Longoria.

But, instead, you're doing the hard thing: you're resisting your urges. And you're doing it in the face of not one but TWO countervailing forces. First, your moral lifestyle isn't in any way rewarded or celebrated. There's no show called "Dedicated Housewives." Second, the immoral lifestyle, the one which you desire as much as the next person but resist, is not only glamorized and shoved in your face, but is depicted as being completely wonderful. You don't see the STDs, or the inner conflict, or any of the other potentially negative consequences. It burns you up, and you can't help but feel like scolding everyone around you. Honestly, I sympathize.

Here's my solution: give in.

Watch an episode of Desperate Housewives and just allow yourself to wallow in the ickiness of it all. Scream "MOTHERFUCKER" at the top of your lungs. Take a crowbar and beat the crap out of an old water heater. TiVo an hour of Cinemax after 11pm.

Because when you reach the point where you can't take it anymore, you're going to sin. It's inevitable. Sin is part of the human condition (indeed, it is the human condition). God knows that you have these evil urges, and he knows that you're not going to be able to resist them 100% of the time.

So when you get to that point where you just can't take it anymore, you have two choices. You can form the American Family Association and scolding the shit out of everyone, which is a sin. "When pride comes, then comes disgrace; but with the humble is wisdom." (Proverbs 11:2). Also, I'm guessing that there's a lot of paperwork involved, so, as sins go, the AFA doesn't seem like much fun.

Or you can just take a few minutes and indulge. You're sinning either way, so why not make it count? It'll release some pressure, it'll remind you that we're all just humans, and it might even be fun. God's going to forgive you either way. Heck, I'll even loan you my copy of the new GTA, after I'm done with it. So, you know, around June of next year.

[While we're on the subject, a great article in buzzcut about evil, evil video games. Essentially, some scolding body put out a list of the 10 worst video games. But when the scolds were asked if they'd played any of the evil, evil games, not a single scold had played a single game. Ha!]

A Cure For What Ails You

I firmly believe that holding a baby cures what's ailing a person's soul. I wonder how the UN would function if all the members held a baby while they debated the weighty issues of the world? I'm thinking resolutions might come a lot easier. Without getting political, one of the things I really liked about John Kerry was how he looked when he held babies during the campaign. They weren't just a photo op for him. He took them from the parent with a recognition of their fragility, cradled them gently, looked into their faces, and a genuine look of joy came over his face. He understands what I mean.

I spent about 2 hours yesterday holding the three-month-old daughter of an attorney in our office. She's a delightful baby with bright blue eyes, wispy dark hair, and chubby little cheeks that just beg to be kissed. She reminds me how much I loved being a mother to my babies. As I fed her a bottle, the piles of work on my desk seemed to vanish as I looked into her eyes recalling the many peaceful hours I spent feeding my own babies. There's just something about the innocence and trust of an infant in my arms that gives me a deep sense of hope and optimism and peace.

Ironically, it's easiest to have these feelings holding someone else's baby. When it's your own, you're too wrapped up in how-to-be-a-good-parent to truly appreciate the temporal experience of babyhood. All the principles of proper parenting float around in your consciousness, so that the pure enjoyment of the child is somewhat dimmed. You're so focused on not screwing up, it's hard to just relax and enjoy the moment. With someone else's baby, you can do just that and let the real parents do the heavy lifting. I guess that's why many of my friends enjoy being grandparents so much.

It's an axiom of aging that you seldom realize the value of what you had until it's gone. Your health, your freedom, your innocence, a loved one.....the list is long. I valued my babies when I had them, but not for the reasons I'll value my grandchildren. And that's okay. It's why those kinds of generational connections are important.

Unfortunately, my own children haven't been able to benefit from those connections because their paternal grandparents both died when they were small, and their maternal grandparents have issues with me. It's hard to recognize dysfunction when you're in it, but it's really obvious when you're outside looking in (assuming the curtains are open). I take a lot of pride in the fact that I've overcome the dysfunction I was raised in to build a family with my husband that more closely resembles the norm. It's not been without cost. My personal journey is one of the reasons I value thinking and education so much. Without having left home to go to college and learn to think in ways I hadn't been taught at home, I'd never have broken the cycle of dysfunction that plagues my family. So, I'll always advocate opportunities for critical thinking and growth over simple-mindedness and the maintenance of pure tradition. And some day, hopefully, I'll be blessed with some grandchildren who will remind me once again how it was all worth it.

A Must-Read

Normally, I would chuck this in the little "Random Thought" sidebar, but this article was so good, I'm putting it front and center.

"Lessons Learned About Undecided Voters" by Christopher Hayes.

Mr. Hayes spent the last seven weeks of the campaign in Wisconsin, talking to the always-elusive "undecided" voters, and some of his (admittedly anecdotal) evidence is laugh-out-loud funny. I will only further observe that his final observation matches mine from last week -- this election wasn't entirely about politics.

I'm Bryan, What Tsunami?

A sudden storm of work and life events has conspired to keep me from this place this week. Also, the server keeps going down, so you couldn't read what I wrote anyway. But there are changes happening -- Eli's coming, my friends.

Also, I had a real live email conversation with Heather Havrilesky last night, so I'd appreciate it if you'd form two parallel lines and just try to touch me two at a time.

If I Were In Hawaii, Maybe I'd Know What To Do With Malaise

Not posting today. No promises for tomorrow.

I'm Sorry

It's Friday. I was in a mood to talk about something a little lighter than the heavy political discussions raging here the last week or so. But, Bryan might revoke my blogging privileges if his traffic goes down on my watch, so I'll jump right back in to the heartland/brainland debate. Bryan's observation that a large portion of our countrymen make decisions based on gut feelings as opposed to intellectual analysis makes a lot of sense to me. But, like all good theories, there are exceptions.

Tort reform, specifically as it relates to medical malpractice, is a big issue for the Bush administration. Your president mentioned it over and over on the campaign trail. As Mr. Bush sees it, doctors practice "defensive medicine," which drives up the overall cost of healthcare. But despite ordering all those unnecessary tests to be sure they don't make mistakes, doctors make them anyway, so victims sue and juries award millions and millions of dollars, thus causing doctor's premiums to go up.

There are so many flaws in this argument, it's tough to know where to begin. But rather than debate the merits of his argument - a brainland approach - I'd rather point you to this article that describes how the number of lawsuits filed are significantly diminished by the mere act of a doctor or hospital apologizing when there's been a mistake. Understand that this isn't bluster or conjecture, such as we heard on the campaign trail. These are tried and true results. The really interesting point here is that this is really a heartland idea, isn't it? So why wasn't your president, a guy clearly in touch with the heartland of America, proposing this kind of solution - a solution with documented success? I'll tell you why. It's not the heartland values or brainland values that matter in this country. It's money and power. If Mr. Bush gave a rat's ass about the people who are truly victimized by medical malpractice in this country, he'd advocate the power of apology. It's an even greater hypocrisy when you consider that forgiveness and repentance are fundamental tenets of Christianity. Why wouldn't Mr. Bush be at the forefront of this program? Because Mr. Bush is driven by the power elite in this country, and that includes the insurance lobbies and the medical lobbies.

My husband is an attorney who practices in the area of civil litigation. He's handled some medical malpractice lawsuits, and I can tell you that article is completely accurate. Hospitals and doctors never admit mistakes when they occur. And anger is most often the driving force behind the decision to sue. And as the litigation process progresses, the parties become more firmly entrenched in both their denial and their anger. The role of the attorneys, surprisingly, is to help their respective clients move from their polarized positions to a more realistic assessment of what happened.

There's yet another irony to the fact that the registered voters who returned Mr. Bush to office are the very pool from which jurors are drawn. According to Mr. Bush, those very people who are empowered to choose their president are clearly unqualified to sit on a jury and decide whether there's been malpractice and, if so, how much the victim deserves. No, Mr. Bush believes the government needs to regulate that whole process, because these people, the electorate, just can't be trusted to make those decisions. There's a power elite in this country that had the money and influence to elect Mr. Bush to a second term and that will continue to concentrate power in Washington at the expense of both the heartland and brainland of America.

Nut-Job Literature

If the goal is to better understand Red America, then I say we start by listening to the right-wing nut-jobs.

Personally, I find nut-job literature to be incredibly helpful when I’m trying to figure out what makes those people tick. The nut-jobs are helpful because they are willing to say, explicitly and forcefully, what more moderate commentators think but do not say. The nut-jobs are not bound by reason, taste, sensitivity, or concern for the general welfare, and the result is pure, unadulterated ideology. So if you don’t get it at all, then this is where to start. I mean, if you were trying to teach someone the difference between a square and a circle, would you start with a square that had round corners and bent lines? Of course not – you would start with the squarest square you can find.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the squarest square I can find: Mike Thompson, author of A Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal (found via Wonkette).

Now, before we start reading, you have to remember that there are a few rules that apply to reading nut-job literature. The first, and most important, is that you have to remember that you are not engaging the author in argument. The minute you start shouting back at the monitor, you’ve stopped understanding. The second rule is that you cannot get offended. You will read offensive things; remember that offending people is the hallmark of a good nut-job. Third, you must avoid demonizing the author. He may seem like an evil person, and, in all likelihood, he is. But that’s not the point, so don’t get fixated on it. The fourth rule, and it’s not so much a rule as it is sort of a guideline, is to have some fun with it.

This is tough, so let’s do the first paragraph together.

Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South's secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).

If you’re like me, your first instinct is to shout back, “Are you seriously saying that we’re not better off without slavery, mother$#@*?” and then make some comment about not putting the point of your sentence in a parenthetical. But if you do that, you’re violating the first rule – you’re arguing with a nut-job. You also have to follow rules two and three by not getting offended and not branding Mr. Thompson a racist, even though he probably is. Finally, have a little fun: “You’re right, Mike. All the South wanted was to live peacefully and morally. With slaves.”

Got it? If you can do that, then you should be able to read the rest of the article and get something out of it. To me, the most salient part was his characterization of Red and Blue America:

BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir."

GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.

While the words are incendiary, they are also critical to realizing a central Blue America misconception: this isn’t about policy. In fact, it’s barely about government. Thompson isn't arguing that taxes are too high or that government is too big (although he does make those arguments elsewhere). His separating principle is not belief, but otherness. If you look at his description of Blue America, his central indictment is that we’re not homogeneous. We have different religions, different races, different income levels, different lifestyles, different businesses, different languages, and he dislikes them just for being different. It’s not policy, it’s fear.

I don’t say that he’s driven by fear in an effort to demonize him; I say it in a sincere effort to understand him. I don’t agree or approve, but I think I see what needs to be done. We shouldn’t stop arguing that a gay marriage ban violates equal protection, but should also recognize the insufficiency of that argument. His objection to homosexuality isn’t based in law or policy; it’s based in a bizarre fear of homosexuals (I imagine him reciting the phrase “vigorously heterosexual” to himself at night before he goes to sleep). Mike Thompson doesn’t need a copy of the Constitution, he needs a gay friend.

You’re probably arguing that most of Red America would disagree with Mr. Thompson, at least in words. And that is certainly true – especially with respect to the conservatives who read this site. But I would argue that the folks we don’t hear from – the hard-core Red Staters – share some of the emotions. It’s similar to the way I feel about Noam Chomsky: if you try to pin me to any of his specific words, I would say that I disagree with 90% of them. But the attitudes – the anti-exceptionalism, the global egalitarianism – are an accurate reflection of my philosophies. He doesn’t speak for me, but he speaks to me.

So, to me, the lesson is that we aren’t going to change these minds making political arguments in the political arena. But I don’t think that means we write them off; it means that we have to make our points in a different way. We need to realize that protests and marches aren’t going to be enough. Air America isn’t enough. And strongly-worded blog entries, as much fun as they are to write, aren’t enough. We have to find a way to demonstrate to the rest of America that different is not bad. How do we do that? I have no idea.

Boeller-ing For Omaha

Boeller was my college roommate, but, in the interest of full honesty, I should tell you that being friends with Boeller is part of the reason I am who I am today. Although he goes to medical school in, ahem, a red state, we have kept in touch through the years with long, involved emails. After a recent exchange, I invited him to contribute something to this space, and he has. I am posting it below with the full confidence that you'll like him as much as I do. More, probably, since you never had to deal with the pair of boxers with the hole that let his smelly nutsack hang out.

NEVER SURRENDER

This has been a difficult Fall for me. I tied my heartstrings to the Nebraska tackle football team and the Kerry-Edwards presidential ticket. My devotion was total, touching every facet of my life – including my dogs.

When Nebraska began marching its way towards a losing season, I was despondent. When Kerry coughed up the biggest election of my lifetime, I was inconsolable. What made the political defeat doubly difficult to swallow was my absolute lack of preparedness. This was the first time I’d ever felt a strong emotional connection to an election, so I had no prior experience to call upon to guide me through the aftermath.

My main question is, what do we do now?

I turned to my fellow man for advice, but his solution was unimpressive. When he lived in New England, he sought psychoanalysis; when he lived in the South, he sought violent retribution. Finding answers in neither approach, I decided to forge my own based, largely, on my experience with loss as a Nebraska football fan. If the Democratic party were the Nebraska football team, here’s how I believe they would approach my question:

1. Identify what went wrong. You’ve gotta watch the game tape and interpret what you see. We’ve all seen the tape. Interpreting what we’ve seen is where I’m afraid things are already going very, very badly. Democrats are firing bullets every which way but up, willing to blame anyone but themselves. From Gavin Newsom to Teresa Heinz, there seems to be enough finger pointing to go ‘round and ‘round. But taking the cake in the blame game has GOT to be those who are blaming the electorate. Here is what some New Yorkers had to say on Thursday (from the NYT):

I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland. This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country - in the heartland.

We have street smarts. Whereas people in the Midwest are more influenced by what their friends say.

People who are more competitive and proficient at what they do tend to gravitate toward cities.

I’m hearing these same concepts repeated by my “progressive” coworkers and even (gasp) on this website. The overall message seems to be, “We’re smart and they’re stupid, so why can’t they leave things to us and keep from fucking our country up?”

This attitude is elitist, myopic, ignorant, and very likely to keep us from learning from our loss. The electorate was not, contrary to popular opinion, fooled by anti-gay moves by the religious right (see David Brooks’ NYT editorial for a good discussion of this). They were simply convinced, for reasons that hold water, frankly, that the Republican ticket would lead to a stronger America.

The fact of the matter is that our competition was smart, organized, and wanted this victory more than we did. They came out ready to play and smacked us in the mouth, big time. We underestimated their ability to mobilize their base, and allowed record voter turnout predictions to lull us into a false sense of security. To make matters worse, we didn’t bring our own A-game. Kerry’s campaign was slow, awkward, and failed to provide voters with what they needed to hear. He fought for the good guys, but failed to put up the good fight. This is where our blame needs to lie – here, and only here. If we continue to look for bullshit excuses, we’ll never see our loss for what it really was.

2. Make the appropriate adjustments. OK, so things went poorly for us. Our game plan was flawed and our execution was sloppy. Let’s fix both, shall we?

First, a new plan. Most people I speak with agree that the Democrats have paradoxically lost support by shifting to the center. One explanation for this is that they’ve become increasingly indistinguishable from their competition, marginalizing their ability to offer “votable” issues. Kerry succeeded in distancing himself from Bush on the traditional right-left dividing line of taxes, but failed to do so on much else. Radical changes are needed to fix this problem. Instead of suppressing the Green Party, Democrats should embrace it as a wind of change. They should focus like a freaking laser beam on three major “traditional Democratic” issues (health care, jobs, and education) and forge new ground in these areas (see Clinton administration for examples). They should stop playing “Keeping Up With the Republicans” and start focusing on their own game.

Second, better execution. For Pete’s sake, we’ve GOT to get a more likeable candidate for 2008. (S)he doesn’t need to be a freaking minister, but (s)he should be someone who could sit down at John Q. Midwest Churchgoer’s table for dinner and come across as a solid person. Then, this person needs to execute a campaign run by someone with supra-simian intelligence.

The rest, my friends, is up to us. The red-blue map of America looks daunting, but chipping away at the Republican majority is too important a task to shy away from. We need to continue grass-roots efforts to tap into our vast well of yet-to-be-mobilized supporters. They’re out there, waiting for us. My county benefited hugely from the work of dedicated Dems this year, turning out a 2:1 Kerry victory in a solidly Republican state (NC).

We can do it, but only through dedication and hard work. These are the times that truly test a team’s mettle. We lost big. Our fans are booing from the sidelines. We’re confused and demoralized. But those of us who believe – who truly believe – are going to cowboy up, work through the pain, and suit up for our next game. We’ll prove that our dedication didn’t stop at the bumper sticker on our car, the sign in our yard, or the shirt on our dog.

The victory is ours for the taking. How much do we want it?

--Boeller

Surrender

[Ed: MomBlog is back today.]

"What? When my principles are challenged, you think I should just change my beliefs? ... I should change my beliefs!" --Phoebe Buffay

Ah, the hope of youth. Bryan's done a really great job over the last few days of trying to make sense of the recent election. His is the only commentary I've been able to read. I'm glad there are people like Bryan and his readers in this world instead of more people like me. Because me...., I'm giving up. Wave the white flag. You win. Uncle. All-y all-y in free.

I'm not talking about a truce; I'm talking about complete and total submission. Like the Pats against the Steelers in the 4th quarter last week, there's really not much point to continue playing the game. The Republicans have won, handily, and a majority of Americans believe they have the answers to our problems. They dominate all three branches of government right now, with the promise of becoming even more firmly entrenched. So, I am fully ready to stop fighting. When enough people tell you you're wrong, you really should start listening. And so I am. I say we losers, liberals, Democrats - whatever you want to call us - should just shut up and move to the back of the class. I'm sure it won't be long before books about Karl Rove's political genius will be assigned reading.

I'm prepared to yield to the commerce, consumerism, conservatism and Christian evangelism that Republicans promise will solve all the problems in this country. Actually, though, this philosophy is in my personal self interest. Why have I not realized this before? I'm in a high tax bracket. That bastard Kerry wanted me to pay more taxes to help redistribute wealth and reduce the debt. What the hell was I thinking? I'm gonna get to keep more of my money now. This will allow me to buy more stuff, encourage businesses to employ more people, and eventually, I'll have to move to a bigger house to hold all my stuff. Then, I'll use more resources to heat it, cool it, and maintain it. That should help the economy even more! Those Alaskans can hardly wait to start drilling even further in the wilderness, I'll bet. Maybe I'll even get to the point where I can hire some servants to help me clean and maintain my house and my stuff. Then they'll be able to buy things, too, and drive the economy even more! Won't that be great?

I'm going to be safer, too. I don't have to worry about those terrorists now, since you-know-who is in charge. Dick Cheney promised me. So, I won't let those Islamic militants bother me anymore. Plus, as Christianity further permeates our national consciousness, we can expect the Supreme Court to strike down Roe v. Wade. Once abortion is no longer legal, women will stop having babies out of wedlock and that'll reduce the drain on our social welfare system. So, that will improve state budgets, since all that aid to dependent children will practically cease. People will start behaving themselves, taking care of their responsibilities, getting jobs, going to church. That should lower my state taxes as well. You know, this plan really is great. And, as a recent commenter pointed out, I can be assured that I have a place in heaven. By questioning Christianity as "the way," I've really been creating an unnecessary risk for my personal eternity in heaven.

Plus, I'm not gay, my children aren't gay, so really, why I should I care about the plight of gays in this country? Damn it, there should be more people just like me and my husband. We deserve all the political, economic and social breaks we can get.

Honestly, the sooner the Republicans get all these reforms enacted, the better off we'll all be. I hope you'll all join me in just getting on board with the reforms you know we all need in our lives. I hope all us Democrats just give the Republicans our full support. Don't vote against anything. Let them show us how it's done. They certainly did that in the campaign, so they're on a roll. Let's just let them fix it all. I'll just be sitting here on my couch eating bon bons, because that's all I'm motivated to do right now.

Unity

So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation. We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.

Mr. President:

Over the last 24 hours, I've been hearing an endless news loop about how I, a liberal, need to make more of an effort to understand "the heartland." Well, since two of the three branches of government and 51% of Americans are Republican, I think that, actually, you need to make an effort to understand us. The heartland needs to try to understand the brainland.

Unlike you guys, I'm not going to make any effort to wrap our core tenets in false piety or tired cliche. I will tell you who we are, plain and simple. My understanding is that you like oversimplified, one-page memos, so let me give it a try.

1. We believe that not everything is so goddamn simple. I don't know if you read Thomas Friedman's column from a few weeks ago, but he provided an interesting fact. Do you know what the Iraqi children call American soldiers? I'll give you a hint: it's not "freedom guys" or "liberator friends" or even "honkies" or "pigs."

It's "Jews." As in, "the Jews are guarding that building." They're called that because the Arab world doesn't make a distinction between America and Israel (sort of like not making a distinction between ... never mind). The war in Iraq was never as simple as "making the Iraqi people free." It is tied to a much longer history of American involvement in the Middle East. You want my trust? Stop talking about the war as a battle between "good" and "evil" and start showing that you have some appreciation for the complex mess we're in.

2. We do not believe the Bible is an inerrant authority. Since we obviously don't see eye-to-eye about religion, I think it's important that you understand how we think about it. We are not all heathens. We do not dance in the streets while hoisting up a golden calf. Many of us are religious, and almost all of us have respect for sensible religious people. I do not hold your Christianity against you in any way.

But here's another fun fact: in my Harvard Divinity School class -- 25 people from across the nation and around the globe, all interested in the Bible -- guess how many people supported your re-election. Give up? None. Because people who have studied the Bible for a living know that you use it inappropriately. The Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is wrong. It doesn’t say that abortions are murder. And it sure as hell does not say that America is Israel. You want my respect? Stop using your faith as an excuse for a right-wing agenda.

3. We believe using our brains is good. You and I have some things in common, Mr. President. We both grew up in heartland homes, and then went to the East Coast for school. But I studied science while you studied, I don’t know, cheerleading. I did well in college, well enough to get into graduate school. I worked hard to understand complex things, and I work hard today to understand the Bible (mostly because it’s important to people like you). I volunteer because I care about helping people.

I say all this, Mr. President, because I believe I’ve earned your respect. I believe I’ve earned a place in the debate. And I believe that the rest of us in New England – the ambitious strugglers who work in office buildings and research labs – are as much an integral part of America as the soccer moms or Nascar dads. Our views on taxes and foreign policy and social issues are not borne out of some kind of malevolent secularism. They are how we see the world. You want my support? Show me that you are willing to consider my viewpoint and take my interests into consideration.

Your new term is a new opportunity, Mr. President. But none of us have forgotten about the last four years – a time during which we were ignored while you did things we despised. If you really want things to be different, then it’s going to have to start with you acting differently. It's going to have to start with Republicans making more of an effort. It’s going to require you to change.

And if you’re not willing to do that, then at least don't patronize me with talk of "national unity."

Absolute Value

On this grim morning, I’m asking myself one question.

What are "moral values"?

From CNN:

A roughly equal number of respondents called "moral values" and the economy as the 2004 election's most importance issues. Those who cited the former backed Bush overwhelmingly (78 percent, with 19 percent for Kerry); those who made the latter a priority voted for Kerry by a similar margin (81 percent, with 17 percent for Bush).

Terrorism and the war in Iraq rated as the third and fourth top issues, respectively. While the voting public evenly split on the Iraq war, those who called it a top issue were far more likely to support Kerry. Bush won handily among those who prioritized terrorism.

I followed this campaign as closely as any employed individual could, and I am at a loss to recall any explicit discussion of "moral values." What are they? What is an example of a "moral value"? And, most importantly, how does having "moral values" impact a Presidency?

My inclination here is to fall completely to the left and ask the following questions: how do we describe the value system that gives rise to pre-emptive war? What values inspire you to make the tax code more regressive? What are the values of a President who is willing to label another human being "evil"?

But I realize that those are self-reinforcing questions. And it is the repeated asking of self-reinforcing questions that led me here.

I have tried, on this blog, to understand and seriously consider the opinions and views of people with different political perspectives. I want to participate in a legitimate debate about government. I posted an entire argument in favor of re-electing the President. I made my best case against that point of view two days ago, and I tried to do so in a way that showed the utmost of respect for different value systems. But the entire enterprise was a failure: the election hinged on an issue that I didn't mention, and, even now, don't understand.

At least, I hope I don't understand it. I want to give the benefit of the doubt to Red America that "moral values" isn't a code word for bigotry. But they aren’t making it easy. While I can see both sides of most of the major issues, the one that continues to confound me is gay marriage. I have written about this until I’m blue in the face, and I still have not heard a single reasonable defense of a government-sponsored system of marriage licensing that excludes homosexual relationships.

And then I look at the results from the 11 state proposals to ban gay marriage. Again, from CNN

State for/against
AR 75/25
GA 77/23
KT 75/25
MI 59/41
MS 86/14
MT 66/34
ND 73/27
OH 62/38
OK 76/24
UT 66/34

I’m going to walk down to Fanieul Hall and listen to Kerry’s concession speech. At this point, what else can I do?

Well, Fuck

Why You Cannot Vote For Bush

I have come to the conclusion that, no matter what your political or party affilliation, it is in your best interest to vote against George W. Bush.

Let’s take the bizarre step of setting all the issues aside for one moment. Big government or small government, interventionist or isolationist, tax-and-spend or libertarian; let’s agree that we all have different conceptions about the role of government in our lives. All of us, even Gopi and Foss, want the best for America.

In this issues-neutral environment, what can we say about the presidency of George W. Bush? More than anything else, it can be characterized by the single-minded pursuit of a vision for the country. And I think just about anyone with a passing familiarity with politics in the last four years can tell you what that vision is: low taxes and pro-business at home, interventionist abroad. I disagree almost categorically with the man, but I can at least tell you where he stands. That is to his credit.

But having a vision is only half of being a leader.

The other half is the execution of that vision. You may know where you want to go, but you have to be able to take us all there. You have to be able to communicate your vision to others and recruit them to your cause. You have to persuade. You have to build consensus. You have to sell your ideas. You must, as the saying goes, be firm on what matters and compromise on everything else.

President Bush has been an undeniable, abject failure in this aspect of leadership, and it disqualifies him from office.

He does not seek to engage those who disagree with him in debate; he seeks to silence them. He does not look to build consensus and then act; he acts and then demonizes anyone who departs from his view. He does not look for common interests in hopes of finding agreements; he looks for areas of conflict in hopes of finding ways to exploit our differences. For the President, disagreement is not an opportunity for clearer communication; it is a roadblock to the complete and unanimous adoption of his agenda.

This is not what America is about. America has always drawn strength from its ability to consider multiple viewpoints before arriving at a decision. The free discussion of competing views lies at the foundation of our justice system, our economy, our educational institutions, and, perhaps most importantly, our political system. We have had tremendous success because we don’t just take anyone’s word for it about anything. We are a huge, messy, competitive system. And it has worked out fabulously, because this competition drives us to find better and better ways of doing things.

But the President doesn’t want to be the strongest or most compelling voice in the public debate – he wants to be the only voice. No matter how you feel about the Iraq war, you have to admit that it’s been carried out with a total disregard for those who disagree, both at home and abroad. No matter how you feel about gay marriage, you have to admit that his actions have shown nothing but contempt for any solution other than the complete denial of partnership rights to homosexuals. No matter how you feel about the environment, or fiscal responsibility, or civil liberties, you have to admit that the President is unable to persuade, he does not consider views other than his own, and he does not compromise.

And, perhaps worst of all, the President is most inflexible about his own inflexibility. He has said, repeatedly, that he is not going to change. He proudly refuses to read the newspapers. He doesn’t want to be “popular.” And he wants a second term to continue pursuing the exact same agenda in the exact same way. It is dumbfounding to consider that this President was elected after losing the popular vote, and yet has made no effort whatsoever to consider or incorporate the ideas or values from the more-than-half of the country who wanted someone else as President.

Ultimately, his scorched-earth diplomacy sabotages his agenda. His mistreatment of his political opponents causes them to oppose his ideas without regard for their merits. There were good reasons to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. But by alienating everyone with reservations or concerns, the President created a false dichotomy: you were either for the war or against it. And you can see the results today; bad news from Iraq is greeted with thinly veiled schadenfreude by those who were scorned by the President or his staff. Worse, discussion of the future of our involvement in Iraq is now almost totally non-existent. People on this side of the fence continue to hate the war without regard for it’s potentially positive impacts, and people on that side continue to defend it in the face of mounting evidence that we are perilously close to failure.

This is no way to lead a country. If you agree with the President’s views on the issues, you should be afraid of his re-election. A second term will mean four more years of blind partisan conflict. Every agenda item – Social Security reform, tax code reform, health care reform – will be bitterly fought by an opposition that feels, rightly, that their views are completely disregarded. And if you disagree with the President’s views on the issues, this election is of desperate importance. You know that a second term means not that your views will take a back seat. It means that your views aren’t even getting in the car.

We cannot go on like this. We have to get back to an environment where the best ideas have a chance to be heard and seriously considered. This can only come with a change of leadership. And we all – Republicans and Democrats alike – need to take a few hours tomorrow to make sure that it happens.