SMASH THE SCHOOLS:
Zero Tolerance for Teens

From AlterNet:

"On November 22, students at the APW High School were surprised when several police squads and their drug-sniffing canine units entered the building for a thorough search of students' lockers," says the story. "It was an investigation that took place upon the principal's request, and resulted in only one major finding, a small amount of marijuana and a marijuana pipe in a student's pocket."

But since the institution of strict zero tolerance policies at schools around the country over the past decade, students are regularly suspended or even expelled for offenses that range from the relatively minor like minimal marijuana possession to the truly ridiculous – like possession of a dull table knife to cut a grapefruit at lunch, or taking Tylenol for a headache.

Among many "Zero Tolerance Nightmares" posted on a website of the same name, students described being suspended or expelled for things such as asking too many questions about Sept. 11 or possessing a pocket knife used to fix a car mirror. In many states, schools are also extending zero tolerance policies to off-campus behavior, including minor drug possession or under-age drinking.

For the straight dope on US public schools, click here.

American public schools, as institutions, are not about learning, contrary to the conventional wisdom. Rather, the public schools serve purposes that are not widely recognized for what they actually are. First, the public schools exist to warehouse children so that they do not cause trouble. As societal and familial structures continue to erode due to over two decades of neo-liberal economic reforms, the schools increasingly become part of our nation's overall security apparatus, which includes the prisons, the police, and the military.

Second, the public schools exist to indoctrinate children into the culture of obedience and authority. Every aspect of the student's life is regulated; some elite students are given limited privileges and command powers--jocks bullying the weak without consequence comes to mind here. This notion of obedience/authority indoctrination is not so outlandish: the American public school system is structurally modeled on nineteenth century Prussian schools which quite consciously created a militaristic atmosphere in order to produce militaristic citizens. An essay by Thom Hartmann on American educational history in terms of attention deficit disorder makes this observation:

[Horace] Mann believed the Prussian public school system was the solution to the growing social problems of America: it would create a more homogenous population of compliant workers who shared similar opinions and values. It would tame the wild west and settle a restive population. He began proselytizing for compulsory public education, particularly among the leaders of industry, suggesting that if they could bring their political influence to bear they could help solve societies problems while at the same time getting better workers for their factories.

Hartmann concludes:

And so today we have a public school system which has as its primary goal the socialization of our children. A willingness to comply, to go along, to submit to the authority of the system and the teacher is more important than intelligence or curiosity or creativity. Those kids who go along are rewarded with good grades. Those who don’t naturally submit their will to the authority figures, the teachers, are often crushed.

In American schools, learning is happenstance. It's what may or may not happen when the opportunity occasionally arises. Most of a school's energies are directed toward enforced conformity and routine. The holy grail of education, "critical thinking," is hopelessly at odds with what schools are really about. Free thought and criticism, as concepts, are diametrically opposed to discipline and order, as concepts.

The notion that schools are actually working to facilitate learning is so strongly embedded that most educators cannot see the contradiction. Nevertheless, the irrationality of the situation wears them down: the majority of teachers leave the profession after an average of five years.

I know. I'm a teacher. The value compromises I make daily, the judgments, the commands, the self-censoring to which, for survival's sake, I must constantly resort have made me increasingly disgusted, angry, and scared. This sordid scenario has been my work life for five years now: I am the computer to whom Captain Kirk poses a logical paradox--unable to reconcile his mutually exclusive propositions, I have no choice but to shut down, a morass of smoking, melted wires and tubes.

The schools are unsalvageable. I quit. This fall will mark the beginning of my final year as a public school teacher--I'm getting out; waiting tables, telemarketing, anything is better than this hell. A pox on them all. We must smash the schools, pave over their sites, and start all over.

Because what we have now is a sick joke.

UPDATE: Here is an audio file of Captain Kirk destroying a computer with a logical paradox.

Thanks to Star Trek in Sound and Vision for the sound.

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

REAL MEN REVISITED:
Corresponding with a “Metrosexual”

Blogging is just getting more and more interesting.

Karru Martinson, the subject of the New York Times article, "Straight, hip and moisturized, metrosexuals making a mark," to which I referred in my recent post, “REAL MEN: Rejecting Consumerism's Twisted Answers,” Googled up a link to Real Art, read my essay, and emailed me some of his thoughts.

(At least, I think it’s him; Internet anonymity could be helping to make me the butt of some silly cyber-joke, but I take him at his word. It doesn’t even matter, really; the email he sent me has some good thoughts.)

So, here is our exchange:

Greetings & Salutations,

Read your post with some interest and while I agree that the metrosexual concept as it was presented in the article was truly from a marketer’s viewpoint, I believe that many "metrosexuals," myself included, are probably a bit more aware of what is going on with the new masculine mystique and attempts to package and sell it than you give us (or me at least) credit. We aren't the ones shopping at the mega-malls, swallowing the tripe about SUV commercials, etc. And that is why marketers are so keen to label us and try to figure out our code. It will always be a game of cat and mouse so it keeps us all on our toes.

Have a good weekend.

Karru

Dear Mr. Martinson,

I meant no offense.

Please understand that my essay was not so much about you or what you may personally represent or believe; rather, I am more concerned with the continuing transformation of the US economy, how that transformation is tending to push an ever growing number of American men into societal irrelevance, and how the fashion, advertising, and mass media industries see such suffering as economic opportunity—those three industries create social meaning, usually without any sense of social responsibility; I fear their marketing of the new “masculine mystique” in its various forms has already caused far more pain than is popularly understood.

Trust me when I say that I appreciate the concept of the well-dressed man. Some of my earliest and most influential memories are of seeing Sean Connery as James Bond, immaculately dressed in a white dinner jacket and black bow tie, drinking his very dry vodka martini, shaken, not stirred—I also remember looking at my father’s 1960s Playboy magazines and, of course, loving the voluptuous babes, but also admiring the hip, urban, sophisticated, classy men. In all honesty, I think that, in principle, I actually like the “metrosexual” concept: I hate what Madison Avenue seems to want to do with the concept—it is depressing that this kind of mandated image-consciousness is already pressuring many American men in ways they probably don’t understand.

And as for not giving you enough credit to know what’s going on, I must again say that the essay wasn’t so much about you as it was about the economy and top-down ideas about masculinity. In fact, I have to say that most of the New Yorkers I’ve met, from street people to professionals, seem to be much more sophisticated and wise about how the world works than most other Americans seem to be.

But I guess that’s how you have to be if you want to live in the capitol of the world.

Thanks very much for reading my weblog.

Ron

PS I think, if it’s okay with you, that I’d like to post your email and my response on my site—it would probably make for interesting reading. Please let me know if there’s any problem with my doing this.

No offense was taken so no worries. I can completely relate with your early concept of the metrosexual male and in fact believe that the core group of this sub-set is probably better modeled along those lines. The question for marketers is how to repackage some of the simple elements of the lifestyle (i.e. shampoo) so that the average guy can add incremental revenues to the top line of the manufacturers. In doing so, they will neglect the depth of the group of early adapters and hence products they think that we'll lap up (like Axe body deodorant) are going to remain on the shelf if I pass them.

Feel free to post my original email. And this one as well if you'd like. Have a great day.

Karru

Karru seems to be a pretty nice guy. Thanks to him for providing some interesting content for my blog. Also, I keep getting hits from Google searches referring to the Times article: either lots of people in the world are really interested in the “metrosexual” concept, or Karru has a lot of friends. Probably a bit of both. Anyway, thanks to everybody else for surfing on in to Real Art to track down the article.

Ya’ll come back now, y’hear?

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

AMERICA IS WORKING ITSELF TO DEATH
That is, the part of America
that's lucky enough to actually work...

Bush's Labor Department to Change Overtime Pay Laws

A union-funded study found that 8 million workers would lose their overtime pay. Opponents say those employees will be required to work longer hours without extra pay if the proposal is adopted. That's because overtime pay acts as a protection to the 40-hour work week, and employers don't want to pay that price to get more work, they say.

"Our citizens are working longer hours than ever before - longer than any other industrial nation," according to a letter sent to Chao by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and signed by 42 Senate Democrats.

"At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to balancing work responsibilities and family needs. It is certainly not family friendly to require employees to work more hours for less pay."

Click here.

Thanks to Eschaton.

American Workers Get Stiffed on Vacation Time

U.S. workers aren't guaranteed any vacation time by law and take an average of 10.2 vacation days a year after three years on the job, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In contrast, workers in the United Kingdom are guaranteed 20 paid vacation days by law and take an average of 25 days off a year. Even in notoriously hard-working Japan, workers have a legal right to 10 days off and take an average of almost 18 vacation days a year.

Click here.

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

BUSH'S LIES

U.N. draft report: No link between Iraqis, al-Qaida

"Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links between Iraq and al-Qaida," said Michael Chandler, the committee's chief investigator.

The committee first heard of alleged ties during Secretary of State Colin Powell's February presentation to the Security Council ahead of the Iraq war.

"It had never come to our knowledge before Powell's speech and we never received any information from the United States for us to even follow-up on," said Abaza Hassan, a committee investigator.

Click here.

Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?

On June 25, during the House debate on the intelligence authorization bill, Harman delivered an informal progress report on her committee's inquiry. Her remarks received, as far as I can tell, little media attention. But they are dramatic in that these comments are the first quasi-findings from an official outlet confirming that Bush deployed dishonest rhetoric in guiding the United States to invasion and occupation in Iraq. This is not an op-ed judgment; this is an evaluation from a member of the intelligence committee who claims to be basing her statements on the investigative work of the committee.

Click here.

As I have said continuously for months now, President Bush and his puppet-masters have lied to the American people, have manipulated our 9/11 sympathies and sense of patriotism, in order to aggressively invade an essentially defenseless nation. Not only does the President need to be impeached and thrown out of office, he also needs to be behind bars. His crimes are enormous, practically beyond belief: America does not want to believe, but we can hide our heads in the sand only for so long.

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

FIVE MEDITATIONS ON SCALIA’S DISSENT
A Few Thoughts from a Layman on
the Lawrence and Garner v Texas Case

Introduction

Of course, this is about the Supreme Court decision, handed down last Thursday, that overturned 1986's Bowers v Hardwick decision and ruled anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. Why examine the dissenting opinion instead of the majority opinion? It’s not too far fetched to imagine that Scalia’s views represent the intellectual apex of conservative thinking on the issue of homosexuality and the law in the United States. His dissent, most likely, will form the philosophical basis for any and all future challenges to the new “law of the land” concerning gay sex. Or maybe I’m writing this just because I like to kick an arrogant conservative when he’s down. Either way, his opinion is worthy of analysis.

Before I go any further, I have to state that, for me, while considering Scalia’s opinion, the Bush v Gore case looms largely in the background. That is to say, despite Scalia’s self-described “originalist” judicial philosophy (in other words, deciding cases according to the plain language of the Constitution, or according to the framers’ “original intent”), despite others (including the President) describing him as a “strict constructionist” (a term originally coined by William Rehnquist to mean a judge who “in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs”), Scalia is, in fact, a judicial activist when he feels like it.

For those of you who don’t know, “judicial activism,” as far as I can tell, refers to judges going above and beyond the absolute letter of the law when deciding cases. Most of the landmark civil rights decisions of the 20th century were made by a couple of US Supreme Courts filled with activist judges: school desegregation, Miranda warnings, abortion rights, access to contraception, the exclusionary rule, and a host of other civil rights that Americans now take for granted were created by the Supreme Court. Generally, the term “judicial activism” has been a conservative battle cry. Liberals rarely, if ever, seem to have a problem with activist judges. One wonders if “strict constructionists” or “originalists” are as concerned with judicial philosophy as they are with the dominance of conservative views. As Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, has observed, the distinction between “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint” is murky, at best, in the public discourse:

Like many catchwords, "judicial activism" has acquired so many different meanings as to obscure more than it reveals. Yet it is not a term that can simply be ignored as intellectually "void for vagueness" for at the heart of it are concerns about the very meaning and survival of law. Abandonment of the term not being a viable option, clarification becomes imperative.

"Judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" raise logically obvious but often ignored questions: Activism toward what? Restraint toward what? Are judges deemed to be activist or restrained toward (1) the current popular majority, (2) the legislature representing the current popular majority, (3) the statutes passed by present or past legislatures, (4) the acts of current of past executive or administrative agencies, (5) the meaning of the words in the Constitution, (6) the principles or purposes of those who wrote the Constitution, or (7) the legal precedents established by previous judicial interpretations of the Constitution?

Activism or restraint toward one of these does not imply the same toward all the others, and may in some instances imply the opposite toward some other or others.

Of course, Sowell, a conservative, goes on to bash activism on the bench, but his point that concepts of judicial philosophy are easily twisted by popular rhetoric is unassailable. The truth is that not a single sitting US Supreme Court Justice is literally a “strict constructionist” or an “originalist.” All of them have ruled in ways that go beyond the plain, clear language of the Constitution: every time the citizen “rights” of corporations, originally granted by the Supreme Court in the 1886 Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific case, are upheld by the Court, the justices (including the so-called “strict constructionists”) are engaging in “judicial activism;” the incomprehensible, party-line decision for 2000’s Bush v Gore case is a clear-cut abandonment of the framer’s “original intent.”

It is my belief, therefore, that Scalia is generally a “strict constructionist” when considering issues that are traditionally liberal; however, when considering traditionally conservative issues, “judicial activism” isn’t so bad. This kind of conservative hypocrisy is certainly not a rarity. For instance, “state’s rights” usually means “state’s rights” to do what conservatives want them to do, not what states may actually want to do themselves. Another example is how quickly the free market fundamentalists will move to bail out a massive corporation in trouble. Basically, it appears that conservatives adhere to the old adage, “do as I say, not as I do.”

Keep that thought in mind as you read my meditations on Scalia’s dissent.

MEDITATION NUMBER ONE:
ON STARE DECISIS

From the LAW.COM Dictionary:

stare decisis
: (stah-ree duh-sigh-sis) n. Latin for "to stand by a decision," the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. Reliance on such precedents is required of trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule, for the trial court cannot ignore the precedent (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law").

For the Supreme Court, stare decisis means that current decisions are bound by past Supreme Court decisions--the Court can only overrule its own past decisions under very specific circumstances. Scalia asserts that, in the Lawrence case, the Court has thrown precedent to the wind. In order to illustrate the majority’s inconsistent use of the principle of stare decisis, Scalia tries to show that the standards used by the Court’s majority to overturn the Bowers decision can also potentially be used as standards for overturning 1973’s abortion-legalizing Roe v Wade decision.

According to Scalia, these are the standards:

1. The precedent has been eroded by subsequent cases.
2. There has been substantial criticism of the original decision.
3. The original decision hasn’t induced “individual or social reliance” that counsels against overturning.

Not being a lawyer, I’ll have to take Scalia’s word that the first point is true: abortion rights have also been eroded by subsequent cases (he cites Casey v Planned Parenthood as an example). I agree with him on the second point—both Bowers and Roe have been heavily criticized for years.

The third point is where Scalia gets a bit wacky. To him, there is no “individual or social reliance” on abortion rights. He asserts that banning abortion would only be a return of the status quo; women could still cross state lines to get abortions. On the other hand, Scalia believes that because sodomy crimes are still prosecuted, there is a “social reliance” on the anti-sodomy laws.

However, American women DO rely on abortion rights—traveling great distances is no obstacle to a man of Scalia’s means, but most women cannot so easily hop a flight or a bus to a more civilized state. His assertion that banning abortion would cause no social disruption is absurd (leave it to a man to always know what’s best for women). Perhaps Scalia is right about the courts and prosecutors relying on anti-sodomy laws, but “reliance” here is used in a perplexing way, especially because Scalia, himself, notes that there are not many sodomy prosecutions. At the very least, Scalia shows a possible reliance of the judicial system on anti-sodomy laws, but certainly not a social reliance. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that gay people engaging in sodomy inside their homes cause absolutely no social disruption at all. Furthermore, given that there is no demonstrable social harm caused by sodomy whatsoever, it seems to follow that anti-sodomy laws do nothing but waste the court’s time, energy, and money. That is, the courts, in fact, do not rely on anti-sodomy laws; rather, the laws are a legal hindrance.

Saying that overturning the anti-sodomy laws would disrupt the legal system is like saying that ending crime would disrupt the legal system. It makes no sense at all. Reading between the lines shows that Scalia is far more concerned with tradition (that is, conservative values) than justice.

MEDITATION NUMBER TWO
On “Fundamental Rights”

Because I’m not a lawyer, I’m a bit out of my element on this one, but I wanted to make a brief comment. Scalia states that the right to engage in sodomy has not been established as a “fundamental right,” and, therefore, cannot be considered in terms of due process rights.

Well, okay.

A “fundamental right” is, by precedent, a right that is “deeply rooted in the history and tradition” of the United States.

I think that I agree that sodomy is not a right that is “deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States.” However, it ought to be. That the American Psychology Association long ago determined that homosexuality (and therefore gay sodomy) is perfectly normal and healthy human behavior, is something that some human beings do without harm to themselves or others, appears to be irrelevant to the law, or, at least, Scalia’s view of the law. It also appears to be irrelevant to Scalia that the single most influential social force in American life, television, for some years now, has been representing homosexuality in a favorable light: public attitudes, in fact, have changed radically since Bowers. I think it is fair to say that homosexuality (and by extension, sodomy) is now deeply rooted in, at the very least, the tradition of the United States, if not its history.

But what do I know? I’m no lawyer.

Perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment to guarantee our privacy rights, what with guys like Scalia out to harpoon them from the bench. Then again, Scalia isn’t really a “strict constructionist” all the time; maybe, one day, he’ll use a little “judicial activism” to strengthen our rights.

Nah!

MEDITATION NUMBER THREE
On “Rational Basis Review”

Rational basis review, that is, weighing the interests of the individual versus the interests of the state, is the standard that the Supreme Court uses to decide the Constitutionality of laws that do not infringe on “fundamental rights.”

(Aside: here, Scalia claims to not know what “acting in private” means—this is very troubling and suggests that he has absolute contempt for the concept of privacy rights.)

In order to show that Texas’ anti-sodomy law survives rational basis review, Scalia compares gay sex to other actions that, even though sexual in nature, are not gay sex: prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, child pornography, and bestiality (echoing Republican Senator Rick Santorum’s “man on dog” scenario fears). In other words, the state has an interest in its citizens’ morality. Scalia ignores that there are some perfectly good reasons that are not moral in nature for prohibiting most of his example behaviors. For instance, prostitution is often very harmful to the women involved, both physically and emotionally (although it seems that there is a better argument to be made for legalizing and regulating prostitution, but I digress); incest can result in offspring with severe birth defects; child pornography is child abuse; bestiality is animal abuse. Never does Scalia demonstrate a state’s actual need for anti-sodomy laws; he simply implies that such laws may provide a sense of moral comfort for people who don’t like homosexuals—all Scalia really establishes is that the state regulates some sexual activities.

Well, duh.

Scalia’s defense of government’s ability to regulate its citizens’ morality evokes a troubling question: what morals should the state embrace? I’m sure that Scalia’s personal opinions are fairly obvious; it is clear that he prefers traditional morals—that is to say, Christian morals. Indeed, Christian morals are the traditional default choice of American morality legislation, of American politics. For instance, it has long been known that a candidate who does not declare that he is a Christian cannot be elected President—once he’s in the Oval Office, he must then publicly show his adherence and devotion to Christian morals, or there can be dire consequences. Most politicians feel the same pressure. The result is that the vast majority of US politicians give, at the very least, lip service to Christian values. Legislation and policy implementation reflect this political-Christian imperative. That’s why most of the time, morality legislation in America has a decidedly Christian slant. The net effect is that forcing Christian morals on citizens is ultimately the same thing as forcing religious values on citizens, a clear violation of the First Amendment in spirit, if not actually in law.

MEDITATION NUMBER FOUR
On Equal Protection

Basically, Scalia rejects Justice O’Connor’s widely held view that homosexuals are a distinct category of citizens. He compares gay sexual behavior to the behavior of nudists—nudists, as a class of people, are also discriminated against, in their case by public decency laws; it is Constitutionally permissible to discriminate against some groups of people.

However, Scalia displays either absolute ignorance of or absolute contempt for contemporary psychological views on homosexuality: sexual orientation is not simply a choice of lifestyle; denial of one’s own sexual orientation often results in severe emotional and psychological consequences. Nudism is clearly a choice made by people who, if they wanted to do so, could easily don clothes and fully interact with and participate in mainstream society. For gays, this is not so easy—sexual orientation is intertwined deeply with human identity; passing as heterosexual, being accepted by straight society is not as simple as putting on a suit (or black judicial robes, for that matter).

This nudist thing is just an awful comparison in any case. A better comparison is to imagine nudity in the home being outlawed. Of course, that’s ridiculous, just as outlawing in-home sodomy is ridiculous. But then Scalia claims to not understand the concept of “acting in private.” Simply put, Scalia thinks of homosexuality as something other than what it actually is—for him, gayness is simply something some people like to do, rather than an integral part of some people’s identities. He is at odds, again, with reality.

However, I must say that I believe he is quite right about the ramifications here for gay marriage: if gays are now Constitutionally recognized as a special group worthy of equal protection under the law, then they MUST be allowed to marry. O’Connor’s statement that the decision is not to be taken as a legalization of gay marriage contradicts her own reasoning. As Scalia puts it later in his conclusion:

…the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,"; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

Way to go, Sandra!

MEDITATION NUMBER FIVE
On Scalia’s Soapbox

Scalia’s conclusion shows his true point of view:

It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

That is to say, medical and scientific opinion is, to Scalia, simply “culture,” a big load of propaganda supporting the “so-called homosexual agenda.” Again, Scalia denies the real world and asserts his own sense of intellectual purity as a “strict constructionist.”

Of course, Bush v Gore echoes here loudly, once again.

It is arguable as to whether “judicial restraint” or “originalism” or whatever you want to call it serves justice better than does “judicial activism.” However, one thing is clear: Scalia does not really adhere to his own stated judicial philosophy—he is only an “originalist” when it comes to considering liberal views; conservative causes, such as getting Bush into the Oval Office, get a more activist approach. It’s kind of funny, actually. The debate about “activism” versus “restraint” has been going on since the 1960s; it now appears that “restraint,” as a philosophy, has prevailed. The irony is that nobody actually seems to believe in it.

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

PAT ROBERTSON'S
WEIRD WACKY WORLD
OF FUNDAMENTALISM

God's Wrath

So, are all the new and weird global weather patterns we've been experiencing lately the result of global warming? Hell, no! Not for Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network "news" division. They think the more reasonable explanation is that God is angry about the "Road Map" to peace in Israel:

Since its modern establishment, the state of Israel has been a hotbed of controversy. Jews and Palestinians have long battled over who should rightfully inhabit the land of Israel, a land promised to the Jews 4,000 years ago. In the Bible, the book of Genesis details the covenant God made with the descendants of Abraham.

"On that day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'to your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river of Euphrates.'" - Genesis 15:18.

And

On April 30, 2003, America was positioned as the catalyst to jump-start the so-called "solution" to the Middle East crisis. As U.S.-backed Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas was sworn in, the "Road Map" peace plan was set in motion.

The very next day began the worst month of tornadoes in American history, more than 500 in a single month. Normally, 1,000 tornadoes hit the United States each year, but this year, in just eight days in May, 375 twisters ripped across the heartland of America.

What a bunch of total loons!

Click here.

Wait a minute...isn't the Euphrates in Iraq? Does this mean that, at some point in the future, radical Zionists and Christian fundamentalists will be demanding a Greater Israel that extends from the middle of Egypt to the middle of Iraq? I mean, that's what the Bible says, right?

Damned crazy fundamentalists...

also

From the Dean of Men at Pat Robertson's Liberty University:
Dress Code - "The Liberty Way"

You may wear casual or athletic clothes and sneakers after 4:30 pm in academic buildings except classes. You must be in class dress for class even if it is scheduled after 4:30 pm. You may wear casual or athletic clothes and sneakers to the dining hall, however you may not wear shorts or sweats at anytime in any building other than dorm rooms or athletic facilities.

With pics! Click here.


Thanks to FARK for the links.

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

Israeli Army decides to close file on death of U.S. peace activist

My buddy, Brian, sent me this link and asks, "Anyone seen this in the US media?" Then he states, "Disgusting and infuriating."

Indeed.

And I have not seen this in the US media...

According to the activist, Corrie was wearing a bright jacket and climbed onto the bulldozer shovel-plow and began shouting at the driver.

"There's no way he didn't see her, since she was practically looking into the cabin. At one stage, he turned around toward the building. The bulldozer kept moving, and she slipped and fell off the plow. But the bulldozer kept moving, the shovel above her. I guess it was about 10 or 15 meters that it dragged her and for some reason didn't stop. We shouted like crazy to the driver through loudspeakers that he should stop, but he just kept going and didn't lift the shovel. Then it stopped and backed up. We ran to Rachel. She was still breathing."

Click here.

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

SCALIA ON SODOMY

Or is it sodomy on Scalia? I'm not sure...I'm a bit bleary-eyed after reading his dissenting opinion in Lawrence et al. v. Texas. Anyway, I had planned to try to find some cracks in his reasoning and write about them during my usual late-night blogging session tonight, but I was too ambitious. It took over an hour of close reading and note taking and I'm just too drained to make any comments yet. So that's on tap for tomorrow: I do have a few comments from a layman's point of view that I want to make--Scalia is extraordinarily rational and doesn't hide behind weird legal terminology, but he does make some assumptions that seem to be more from the stance of a conservative's world view, rather than from that of a disinterested judge; I'm going after his assumptions.

I will say this. My ex-lawyer buddy, Alan, has stated that, while he doesn't always agree with Scalia's decisions (Alan, I think, prides himself on being neither liberal nor conservative), Scalia does write the clearest opinions coming out of the Supreme Court. I think Alan's right. Scalia's opinion, while mentally taxing to read, was actually pretty enjoyable in as much as following his arguments are concerned.

Here are the opinions, if you want to read them yourself. Tomorrow, I'll have some commentary on Scalia's dissent (Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion, but, as usual, it is pretty short and without much substance).

In the meantime, I'm going to post a couple of links for the interim. See above.

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

Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes

Uber blogger Neal Pollack writes:

Radio-talk-show and weekend MSNBC host Michael Weiner, otherwise known to his half-dozen viewers and listeners as "Michael Savage," has filed a lawsuit against three websites to punish them for making critical comments about him. According to Savage's lawsuit, the sites, Take Back The Media, Michael Savage Sucks, and Savage Stupidity, have appropriated his name without his permission for commercial purposes, among other alleged crimes. This, of course, is nonsense.

And

We need to fight back, as a community, in defense of these three websites. That's why I'm proposing an Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes day on Thursday, June 26.

That's right. On Thursday, June 26, any of you with a website should appropriate Michael Savage's name for your own purposes. Flood The Zone, as the Republicans like to say. Savage won't be able to sue all of us. If he tries, he'll look like a bigger idiot than he already does.

For more, click here.

As a patriotic blogger, myself, I must participate. So here goes:

Supreme Court strikes down
Texas' ban on Michael Savage sex

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court struck down Texas' ban on Michael Savage sex today, ruling that the arrest of two Houston-area men having Michael Savage sex in their bedroom was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant Michael Savage sex.

Laws forbidding Michael Savage sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for the two men had argued to the court.

Click here.

So, in the state of Texas, and in all of the United States, it is now, by law, a right for people of the same gender to participate in Michael Savage sex. This has been a long time in coming. The general American culture has come a long way since the last time the Supreme Court ruled on this topic back in 1986.

I'm sure that agit-prop Nazi radio bastard, Michael Savage, will be very happy now that he can engage in his own brand of love making.

More on this decision from me later.

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

REAL MUSIC

Jacob's Ladder (Not in My Name)

By Chumbawamba

Jacob's ladder
Like the Sermon on the mountain says dumber got dumb
Hellfire and brimstone swapped for oil and guns
When we're pushing up daisies we all look the same
In the name of the Father, maybe, but not in my name
On this Jacob's ladder, the only way up is down
One step from disaster, two to make the higher ground
Jacob's ladder
And they sent him to the wars to be slain, to be slain
And they sent him to the wars to be slain
A million lifetimes left dying in the sun
In the streets down in Whitehall, dogs pickin' at the bones
Nine eleven got branded, nine eleven got sold
And there'll be no one left to water all the seeds you sowed
On this Jacob's ladder, the only way up is down
One step from disaster, two to make the higher ground
Jacob's ladder
And they sent him to the wars to be slain, to be slain
And they sent him to the wars to be slain
And they sent him to the wars to be slain, to be slain
And they sent him to the wars to be slain
On this Jacob's ladder, the only way up is down
One step from disaster, two to make the higher ground
On this Jacob's ladder, the only way up is down
One step from disaster, two to make the higher ground
Jacob's ladder
Puppy dog leader sooner or later
We'll dig up your cellar and try you for murder
(Repeats)

For mp3 download, click here.

Thanks to Future World Funk for the link.

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

REAL ART
Artists against imperialism

THESE programmes played a vital role in the anti-war movement. First they allowed creative people to express themselves physically against the war. They rose above the condition of being mere spectators helplessly watching on television the savage attacks on Iraqi cities. Second, while the war was bound to pass - and it has done so even sooner than expected - the expression of the artists will remain as an indictment of the U.S.-led aggression just as Picasso's indictment of the Nazis and General Franco has survived the Second World War, Hitler's Germany and Franco's Spain. In fact, while Francisco Goya's anti-war works still attract hundreds of viewers, Chitta Prasad's anti-imperialist art has a museum dedicated to it in Prague surviving long after British colonialism in India died.

Contemporary art is not only effective as a condemnation of acts of inhumanity whenever they are committed; it is part of the ongoing struggle against it. Each such work of art represents a strategic attack in the battle to defend humanity and culture, while the genre as a whole has a powerful role to play in speaking out the truth and in exposing the real interests behind imperialist wars and the massive barbarism involved in carrying their mean designs forward.

Click here.

To see Picasso's Guernica, click here.

Thanks to ZNet.

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

REAL THEATER
For Iraqi Thespians
The Show Must Go On

Like most things in Iraq, the Iraqi theater is in disarray. The al-Rashid was looted and torched in the wake of the battle of Baghdad. It sits next door to the blackened ruin of Iraq's former Information Ministry. Of the building's nine floors, only one theater hall and a few small rooms escaped the vandals.

Sami Qaftan, one of Iraq's most prominent actors and playwrights, took it upon himself to salvage what he could of the theater, one of 12 in the Iraqi capital. "We managed to protect one hall. The stage and seats are intact. Luckily, the sound and lighting systems were not damaged," he said. Qaftan and others take heart that they're part of a budding revival of Iraq's once rich arts and culture scene.

Click here.

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

REAL MEN:
Rejecting Consumerism's Twisted Answers

I read a NY Times article syndicated in the Houston Chronicle yesterday that kind of made me cringe:

Straight, hip and moisturized, metrosexuals making a mark

By his own admission, 30-year-old Karru Martinson is not what you'd call a manly man. He uses a $40 face cream, wears Bruno Magli shoes and custom-tailored shirts. His hair is always just so, thanks to three brands of shampoo and the precise application of three hair grooming products: Textureline Smoothing Serum, got2b styling glue and Suave Rave hairspray. Martinson likes wine bars and enjoys shopping with his gal pals, who have come to trust his eye for color, his knack for seeing when a bag clashes with an outfit, and his understanding of why some women have 47 pairs of black shoes. ("Because they can!" he said.) He said his guy friends have long thought his consumer and grooming habits a little ... different. But Martinson, who lives in Manhattan and works in finance, said he's not that different.

"From a personal perspective, there was never any doubt what my sexual orientation was," he said. "I'm straight as an arrow."

So it was with a mixture of relief and mild embarrassment that Martinson was recently asked by a friend in marketing to be part of a focus group of "metrosexuals" -- straight urban men willing, even eager, to embrace their feminine sides. Convinced that these open-minded young men hold the secrets of tomorrow's consumer trends, the advertising giant Euro RSCG, with 233 offices worldwide, wanted to better understand their buying habits.

For more Madison Avenue vomit, click here.

My first gut response to this blatant piece of fashion industry info-tainment disguised as news was something like, "I prefer it the way it was back in the day, when gay was gay, straight was straight, and everybody with a good sense about such things was pretty sure who was who." Of course, I don't really care one way or the other--there have always been hyper-masculine men and there have always been effeminate men: humanity is all the more interesting for including both kinds, along with all the different nuances between the two extremes. No, I kind of like the concept of the dandy. After all, I'm an actor, and what actor doesn't appreciate a sense of style?

What actually disturbs me about this article is that it reminds me of a depressing trend that has been gradually worming its way into American culture for some years now: feminist writer Susan Faludi has demonstrated in her book Stiffed that masculinity in America, traditionally defined in terms of social utility, is slowly being replaced by what she calls "ornamental masuclinity," irrelevant gender characteristics for irrelevant people. Faludi doesn't observe this trend only in terms of mall-hopping dandies: the macho yang causing suffering in tandem with the effeminate yin is seen in the endless Hollywood parade of pointless bad boy role models such as Howard Stern, Eminem, and Vin Diesel--to Faludi, it doesn't matter if it's refined style or badass attitude; masculinity is becoming, quite literally, a simple put-on.

Probably the best way to understand how this redefining of masculinity functions is to consider the central premise of Betty Friedan's classic work of feminist literature, The Feminine Mystique. In short, Friedan shows how middle class women in the 50s and 60s lived rather pointless lives, without jobs or a sense of participation in society--women of that era were seen by men as mothers and sex objects: gotta look good for my man, gotta go shopping, gotta go to the salon, gotta get dinner ready, gotta change the diapers. This drab existence as housemaids and objects of beauty is what gives the book its ironic title. There was no "mystique" for women in those days. For women, life sucked, and was without meaning. The passtimes and pursuits in which the mass media encouraged women to engage were hollow, shallow, and ultimately sad. Depression is the only logical outcome for any rational human being in such a situation. Fortunately, the women's liberation movement soon arose and offered meaning and a satisfying way of life to millions, many of whom had no idea beforehand how miserable they were.

Is this situation starting to sound a bit familiar?

Neo-liberal economics, which have been used for over twenty years as the justification for both enriching the already wealthy and squeezeing the middle class and the poor, has been pushing vast numbers of American men into irrelevancy. "Downsizing" has become such a common occurance in the US by now that most people don't even seem to think about the long-term psychological effects of forced uselessness on a couple of generations of American men. "The Feminine Mystique" is now the masculine mystique. Corporate America sees financial opportunity: fill the void with the same kind of phony images and consumer fixes that were successfully thrust upon American women decades ago.

Here's how Faludi puts it:

In a culture of ornament, manhood is defined by appearance, by youth and attractiveness, by money and aggression, by posture and swagger and props, by the curled lip and flexed biceps, by the glamour of the cover boy and by the market-bartered individuality that sets one astronaut or athlete or gangster above another. These are the same traits that have long been designated as the essence of feminine vanity--the objectification and mirror-gazing that women have denounced as trivializing and humiliating qualities imposed on them by a misogynist culture. No wonder men are in such agony. At the close of the century, men find themselves in an unfamiliar world where male worth is measured only by participation in a celebrity-driven consumer culture and awarded by lady luck.

The more I consider what men have lost--a useful role in public life, a way of earning a decent living, respectful treatment in the culture-- the more it seems that men are falling into a status oddly similar to that of women at midcentury. The '50s housewife, stripped of her connections to a wider world and invited to fill the void with shopping and the ornamental display of her ultrafemininity, could be said to have morphed into the '90s man, stripped of his connections to a wider world and invited to fill the void with consumption and a gym-bred display of his ultramasculinity. The empty compensations of a feminine mystique are transforming into the empty compensations of a masculine mystique, with a gentlemen's cigar club no more satisfying than a ladies' bake-off.

Be a real man; kick some ass. Look good; the ladies just love a stylin' guy. See me in my EXTREME gas-guzzling off-road vehicle? Aren't I cool? Aren't I a real man? Look at my gym-sculpted abs; aren't I hot? Look! I wear the same underwear as Michael Jordan--I'm as manly as him!

It's so pathetic. I'm disgusted by it all.

Sadly, Faludi points out how most American men have absolutely no understanding of what is happening to them (in fact, it seems to me that many men, subconsciously feeling a need to prove their manhood, have been attracted to the more manly, badass Republican Party, which, ironically, is the key facilitator of the American man's slide into irrelevancy)--confusion complicates the misery. The only way out of this gender hell is a nationwide uprising against the neo-liberal reforms that have turned American labor, and, therefore, American men into so much waste. Alas, I don't see that happening any time soon.

That's why it is so very important that the relatively few Americans who are able to see this stealthy rise of the new masculine mystique scream like freaks about it whenever they get the chance: "metrosexuals" are not the latest hip, urban trend; the concept is simply a consumerist ploy designed to make a lot of cash off of the suffering of American men.

For that matter, Eminem sucks, too.

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

TEENAGE PUNK ROCK

Then

R T Rankin's "We Don't Care" from 1985:

MP3 download OR streaming audio.

And Now

My former student Lance's band, Forever Failing, performing their song "Intentions." Click here for MP3 download.

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

University admissions can use race, court rules

Click here.

A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that universities can give minority students a boost in admissions, saying affirmative action still is needed to ensure that future leaders are culled from a pool of "talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

But the high court made clear that racial quotas remain unconstitutional and said race cannot be the determining factor in who gets into college.

I don't really think that affirmative action was ever supposed to be about quotas in the first place--this was simply an over-reaction born of a fear of lawsuits. This decision, as far as I can tell, allows colleges and universities to continue considering race, but does away with the widespread urge to make it one of the absolutely most important factors in admissions. That should hush for a while the whiney white men who falsely believe that they've been getting the shaft. Not a bad day's work for the increasingly conservative Supreme Court...

For more of my thoughts on affirmative action, click here.

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