TWO FROM EMPHASIS ADDED

If Emphasis Added isn't on your daily short list for internet surfing, you're missing out: Rob Salkowitz is quite the armchair philosopher, and, even when I disagree with him, I'm often delighted by simply following his train of thought to conclusions that certainly haven't occurred to me, and usually haven't occurred to anyone else, either. These two posts I'm linking to are no exception. Take a gander:

Bright Lines, Dim Bulbs

Schwartz makes a convincing case that the number and complexity of choices we face in all aspects of our lives is diminishing rather than enhancing our sense of satisfaction. If this is true in relatively trivial areas like buying jeans or selecting wireless phone service, where the issues are compartmentalized, straightforward and low-stakes, it’s a thousandfold times more true in public policy issues that demand our attention as citizens in a democracy.

As communication and media technology draw us all closer into the workings of government, many people feel obliged to have opinions on a wide range of subjects, including many that are far outside our personal expertise or experience. Having informed opinions (or opinions that can pass as informed) on large, complicated subjects is a full-time job: take it from me (and not on the scanty evidence provided here on EA; forming perspectives on social trends actually is part of my job). For those who can’t spare the cycles but wish to remain engaged, having a fairly rigid and general ideological framework is a practical option. The fact that the framework occasionally produces some absurd opinions is a relatively small price to pay.

The conservative movement has been far more canny about recognizing this cognitive revolt against complexity than progressives. Conservative media obliges its consumers with a ready-made stream of opinions and fake facts to back them up, as well as reinforcement for the general idea of having a “moral sense of right and wrong” (e.g., rigid ideological framework and low tolerance for ambiguity). Since conservatives control most aspects of society and government these days, this satisfying degree of intellectual simplicity is now reinforced by an increasingly fervent sense of group identity, and in some cases rewarded by the blandishments of power.

Click here for the rest.

Despite the old conservative slogan, "Vote Democrat; it's easier than thinking," the reverse is actully true for many Americans. Let's face it: conservatism's stark black and white representation of reality (you're either for America or against it) is extraordinarily appealing to rank-and-file citizens as actual reality grows ever more complex. Indeed, I recall how seductive such thinking was to me for about a week after 9/11. I was so completely blown away, so awe-struck, that my initial reaction was to support what ultimately became our pointless invasion of Afghanistan--I simply couldn't see any other way than violence. It took an anarchist student of mine to remind me of what was actually going on, that imperialistic US foreign policy had gotten us into this situation in the first place, and more of the same would only make the situation worse. Of course, I was already liberal, already knew how the media and politicians routinely warp the truth for their own ends. It was easy for me to come to my senses. The real problem is figuring out how to get human beings who desperately want a simple world to embrace the opposite.

Drugstore Cowboys

One small symptom of the outbreak of collective insanity in Bush’s America that recently caught my eye is a small number of pharmacists who are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills on “moral grounds.”

And

The whole idea that women should be able to have sex and not get pregnant (that is, face no practical consequences for their sinnin’) threatens to completely derail the undercurrent of sexual anxiety that provides the emotional charge to social conservatism.

Really, it’s hard to say what’s gone wrong in their wiring, but there are some folks who just can’t abide the idea of other people having wild sex unless it’s encumbered with the dour baggage of guilt, sin, shame and the obligation to procreate within the confines of marriage. Maybe they don’t like to consider the possibilities. Maybe they’re more comfortable with the anxieties they know (e.g., guilt) than the anxieties that await in a world of broader sexual choices. Perhaps they understand, even better than liberals, that the collapse of sexual repression portends changes to many other institutions of traditional authority, which threatens their entire conception of life and the world.

Whatever it is, when you scratch the surface of any cultural issue of importance to the far right, it doesn’t take long to tap into this vein of hysteria. Abortion, homosexuality, teaching of sex ed in schools, feminism, preoccupation with sexual material in media, and objectionable aspects of the modern urban-cosmopolitan lifestyle – each a complex issue with its own cluster of ancillary concerns – are all bound together in the mind of the far right in a unified field of prudery and disapproval.

Because of the tendency of the right to link these together and label them, rather perversely, “morals” and “family values” issues, it’s been difficult to formulate a response to the entire movement without sounding like an advocate for dope, guns and f*cking in the streets.

Click here for the rest.

Of course, Salkowitz is right to label this "hysteria." I recall a couple of Southern Baptist mothers years ago talking about what films they were allowing their elementary aged children to see. I remember one line in particular, "Oh, that's just rated 'R' for violence, not sex." To which the other mother replied, "Well, violence is okay." Pretty wild, huh? Obvioulsy, the gratuitous glorification of violence is not okay, but when compared to the evils of sexuality, violence looked pretty good to these women. Of course, that makes no sense at all.

Well, it does make a kind of sense when one factors in the notion that sex is powerful on a deep, elemental, psychological level; it's easy to fear power, and fundamentalist Christianity stokes that fear into a roaring blaze. And since straight people realized that HIV isn't just for homosexuals anymore, such thinking has entered the public consciousness in weird ways. As Dr. Cindy Kistenberg, a cultural rhetoric professor who once taught me, wrote in her book AIDS, Social Change, and Theater, the 1990's gave rise to a new unspoken paradigm for modern American sexuality: sex=sin=death. Because of our country's Christian dominated history, everybody "knows" that sex is sinful, and the Bible tells us that "the wages of sin is death." AIDS, which can, indeed, kill people who have had sex, came along and seemingly proved the equation, albeit in the backs of people's minds.

So people simply don't think clearly about sexuality; their minds are clouded by religious banter, weird fears, and psycho-emotional artifacts of childhood. Most people wouldn't agree with the statement, sex=sin=death, but most people probably feel that way deep in their hearts, or at least fear that it's true. That's why we have one majorly fucked up public discourse on sexuality.

Therefore, as a public service, I will unashamedly say what needs to be said. Sex is good. We should all have sex if we want to. We should be respectful to others, and we should be safe and intelligent about it, but we are human beings and sex is what either random evolution or the Lord God Almighty intended for us to do. So, go have sex! And, taking care not to harass anybody, talk shamelessly and often about it. This is the only way to combat America's strange sexual hysteria. It's therapy for the masses. Really, glorifying human sexuality is not only fun, but downright subversive in a good way.

We had learned that back in the 60s, but somehow it's all been forgotten.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$