Funniest Republican Convention Moment. EVAH.

CNN's coverage started with this :

CNN's coverage of the Republican National Convention is sponsored by....

ExxonMobil.

BWAHHAHAHAHA! I had to double check just to make sure I wasn't actually watching Comedy Central. Fortunately, shortly thereafter John King's breathless gushing over McCain like a deranged teenage fangirl confirmed that I was, most certainly, watching CNN.

-Iris Vander Pluym

To Call You Stupid Is an Insult to Stupid People.

From a survey Sarah Palin answered while running for governor of Alaska:

11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 (by a Socialist minister) and the words "under god" were added in 1954. The founding fathers would have gagged.

-Iris Vander Pluym

Not nearly enough conservatives...yet....

After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

Well worth reading in its entirety, but this quote sums it up nicely:

[Khalid Jaberi, a commander with Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades] spent the night before our interview awake and in hiding, fearful of Israeli air strikes. “You know,” he says, “since the takeover, we’ve been trying to enter the brains of Bush and Rice, to figure out their mentality. We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves their overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy otherwise.”

-Iris Vander Pluym
3/3/2008

I was sitting at the counter of my favorite diner on Hudson Street finishing breakfast when they came in. My back was to the door, and I felt the rush of chilly air as the whine of the seven-year-old boy wafted in with it. They trekked to a table, but no one sat down except Frances, a girl of about eight, who plunked herself down in a window seat and quietly began removing her coat and settling in. Jackson, the boy, stood rigidly against the side of the table, purposefully blocking the two seats on the other side. And whining. Louder. By this point the family had attracted the attention of all the waiters and the short-order cook, as well as almost everyone else in the tiny restaurant.

Jackson: WHINE! No!

Dad: Come on Jackson.

Jackson: It’s not fair!

Dad: Come on, sit down.

Jackson: NO! WHINE!!

Dad: You can sit next to me on the ferry ride, okay? Frances did ask me first…

Jackson: NO!!! [Fake crying starts.]

Dad: Come on Jackson, how about sitting in the window seat across from your sister?

Jackson: [Louder fake crying.]

Mom: Sit next to me, over there?

Jackson: NO! I don’t want to! It’s not fair!

Frances: [quietly] Can we go home now?

Dad: What? You want to go home now?

Frances: Yeah.

Dad: Come on Jackson, sit down and we can have something to eat.

Jackson: [screaming] NOOOOO!!!

Dad: Jackson, your sister did ask me first, okay? You can sit next to me on the ferry, okay? It’ll be your turn then.

Jackson: [stamping feet] NO!

Mom: [to Jackson, inaudible.]

Dad: Okay. Frances, will you let Jackson sit there, please?

[Frances puts her coat on, gets up and walks around the table as Jackson passes her, moving toward her seat.]

Dad: Thank you, Frances. Jackson, now give your sister a hug and a kiss to say thank you.

[Frances leans her cheek in and puts her arm around his shoulder. Jackson stands stiff as a board.]

Dad: Jackson, give your sister a kiss.

[He practically spits it at her. The children sit.]

Dad: Jackson, take your coat off.

Jackson: [playing with silverware] No.

Dad: Take your coat off, you’ll get too warm in here.

[Jackson “drops” a knife on the floor. Dad reaches down to pick it up.]

Dad: Jackson…

Me: Marcos, check please?

So how likely is it that Jackson will have a grandiose sense of entitlement? That he will be incredibly manipulative – either cleverly charming, or openly bullying – when it comes to others satisfying even the most petty of his desires? I’d say the chances are roughly 100%. And what, I wonder, will be his expectations of women? Shouldn’t they sacrifice their own desires, their time, their own comfort, to cater to his every whim? (Though it would certainly be the Christian thing for them to do, I’ll grant Jackson that.)

But here’s the worst part: what will become of Frances? Even though she behaves splendidly and plays by the rules, she gets screwed. Jackson’s whims come first, and she is apparently expected to accommodate even his most inconsequential fancies. As a strategy to get through the day, to simply move past the awful moments when you are hopelessly subject to the raw power of a tyrannical seven-year-old, it’s no doubt easier for her (and for everyone else) to simply give Jackson exactly what he wants, just so he’ll stop. But he won’t stop. Well, maybe for a moment, but in the larger scheme of things, the last thing in the world Jackson will ever do is stop. There’s the wicked irony of it.

But I hope Frances takes a long, hard look at it, and makes some notes. She will undoubtedly witness the very same trick again in the not-so-distant future, only this time it will be performed by someone else. Thanks to Dad, of course, she’ll be well trained on exactly how to respond to it – she’ll likely have no other coping skills in her arsenal. When that awful day comes, Frances will not simply consider her options and then make a (very rational) decision that it’s so much easier to just give in, to make this noise stop now, and move on to the next moment – and expect nothing in return, except, perhaps, a reluctant “thanks” spit forth from some seething, bottomless pit of antagonism. On another level, the one operating deep beyond our flickering awareness and consciousness and reason, Frances will acquiesce because it’s the safest, most normal, easy, familiar, and entirely automatic reaction. She’ll be on autopilot. And one day, when she finds herself at some awful shithole destination not of her choosing and wonders how the hell she got there, she’ll have Dad to thank for programming the autopilot.

Jackson’s future, on the other hand, looks very bright indeed. He’ll manipulate and/or bully his way through life getting exactly what he wants, without the pesky burden of caring about what anyone else in the world thinks, wants, or needs. And when his methods don’t work with someone – a girlfriend, say, or a boss – he’ll banish them to the category of Asshole, and move on to a more reliable supplier. He won’t be without one for long, either. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Franceses in the world, and he’ll quickly find himself another one. (Or two. Hey, he’s entitled.) She will console him as he recounts the terrible pain and cruel injustices inflicted upon him by That Asshole Who Didn’t Give Him Everything. Of course he will never, ever, really be satisfied. Even if she handed him the entire universe and everything in it, he’d want two.

If Jackson possesses no great gift for business or the arts – arenas in which, were he successful, he could expect to be accommodated and indulged to a downright decadent degree – maybe he’ll run for office instead. It would accomplish the same thing. And why not? After all, Jackson gets whatever Jackson wants.

-Iris Vander Pluym
1/6/2008

I just got back from an amazing vacation in Florida. The (G-rated) highlights include: Molly Goodhead's, Parcheesi (h/t LQ), a Cirrus SR22G, and New Years Eve in Key West.

I would be hard-pressed to pick my favorite highlight. The lowlight, however, is easy: reading in the St. Petersburg Times about the ongoing “controversy” over the teaching of evolution in the Jacksonville school district. Apparently, at least since 1996, Florida’s science standards do not even mention the word “evolution.” That’s an entire generation of kids who have never heard that word in science class.

Deeply dismaying as that may be, I was happy to see that some teachers, scientists, and others have been attempting to fix this embarrassing state of affairs.

But wait. Here come the Christian conservatives:

“In my lifetime, I’ve never seen an ape turned into a human. I’ve never seen us come from slime,” said Ruth Klingman, who identified herself as a former educator. Darwin should not be “dogmatically taught like it was a fact.”

Indeed. Only a deranged delusion like a virgin birth should be dogmatically taught like it was a fact. (As well as the “fact” that people rode dinosaurs!) I suppose we can at least be grateful that Ms. Klingman is a former educator. But she may have a point: the fact that someone this stupid and ignorant endured on this planet long enough to obtain a college degree certainly seems to cast some doubt on the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest. You’d think that if any of our ancestors were roaming the African savannahs with that kind of tragic neurological deficiency, they would have made a quick and tasty treat for some hungry carnivore. (Maybe a dinosaur?)

How many of us were taught that Pluto was a planet?” said Kim Kendall an activist from St. John’s County.

Wow. Apparently Ms. Kendall took Pluto’s demotion from planet to non-planet really, really hard. I hope she has good medical insurance with mental health coverage. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder can be a tough slog.

There would be no point in explaining to Ms. Kendall that just because Pluto is no longer classified a planet – a result of our increased knowledge about its structure and composition and an evolving (oops!) system of classifying objects in our solar system with ever greater specificity – it doesn’t mean the thing-formerly-known-as-a-planet no longer exists. (Just like there was “Prince,” right? And then there was Unpronounceable Symbol Name Man. Same guy!)

Although the St. Petersburg Times doesn’t say so, I strongly suspect Ms. Kendall’s real problem with Pluto – and more generally, with science – is that knowledge changes. When our understanding of the world changes, we are forced to change too, in ways large and small (like the extraordinarily unsettling inconvenience of being forced to accept that there are a different number of planets in our solar system).

Conservatives hate and fear change, even small change, with a reflexive, pathological compulsion. The uncertainties intrinsic to the very nature of scientific inquiry itself conjure such great fear that conservatives will do and say the most nonsensical, irrational things imaginable. This seems particularly true in cases where scientific inquiry leads to knowledge that directly contradicts the “facts” that they already “know,” like Adam and Eve, for instance. Instead of embracing and reveling in the joys and wonders of the incredible discoveries and technological advancements of our time, they openly scorn science.

It makes me wonder what Darwin might theorize about the adaptive purpose served by the human inclination toward obstinate, willfully blind ignorance, and the concomitant preference to cling desperately to the basest, most rank superstition and ideology. I think that whatever progress humans have made, we have done so in spite of these tendencies, not because of them. In every age of Western history including our own, one sees conservatives valiantly (often violently) obstructing social, moral, and scientific progress. The list is as depressing as it is long: objections to civil rights for African-Americans, women’s rights, the abolition of slavery, birth control – until the 1950s, the idea of offering pain relief to women during childbirth was condemned as immoral by conservatives, since, as everyone knows, pain during childbirth is God’s punishment to all women for Eve’s sin. Who are we to intervene in divine judgment?

And all of this finds support in the bible.

The only good news is that it appears Darwin’s singular, brilliant, world-changing idea will triumph once again over a morass of stupidity, this time in Jacksonville, Florida. But this is not the end. It’s not even the beginning of the end. Unlike Ms. Klingman, who claims she has never seen a human come from slime, I have seen many. My history books and newspapers are chock full of them.

-Iris Vander Pluym
1/6/2008

I had an interesting walk to the subway tonight.

The building where I work abuts a church with a stunning façade, seated in front of which was a middle-aged man, holding a cardboard sign that said “Hungry.” I had just exited my building a few seconds before I passed him, and I took a deep breath of outside air, my first since the morning. Then the following:

Hungry man: How dare you smile at me and then just ignore me and keep walking! How dare you!

Me: Excuse me?

Hungry man: You have a job! I wish I had a job! You got some nerve!

Me: What you have is a sense of entitlement.

Hungry man: Ignorant dyke!*

Me: Go fuck yourself.**

Hungry man: [yelling - unintelligible due to increased distance].

Now lest you think - as he might have - that when I said “What you have is a sense of entitlement,” I meant entitlement to money, and/or to food or somesuch. (For the record, I think everyone is entitled to food, clean water and air, safe shelter, and the basic necessities of living.) But that’s not what I meant. I meant entitlement to determine my facial expression. As if my smile – or lack thereof – had absolutely anything to do with him at all.

Here’s an exchange I’ve had many times while walking past someone on the street. At first I am entirely oblivious to his presence (and yes, it has always been a male) and then:

Loitering man: Smile! Come on, smile! It’s not that bad!

Me: I don’t have to smile for you, asshole. Go fuck yourself.

These conversations reveal both gentlemen to be strikingly similar in at least this one respect: they both feel entitled to demand a certain expression appear on my face when I am in their presence. They don’t know anything about me, and I am merely moving by them and not even attempting to engage them in any way. Unbeknownst to me, however, I am personally reacting to them, reflecting something about them – only incorrectly. Thus I really need to correct my face.

Think they do this to men? (Uh, not a chance.)

Suppose I were what the shrinks call a “people-pleaser” (or codependent if you prefer). My goodness, what on earth should be my facial expression if I happened to stroll past both of these men at the same time? Smile? How dare I! Frown? Better not – someone must be smiled at right now, or …. or what, exactly? He just won’t feel special enough this minute? All is not right in his world unless all the girls are smiling sweetly in his presence?

I wish in those moments I had come up with something perhaps a little more enlightening than the scholarly, erudite “Go fuck yourself.” It’s really just shorthand for “It’s not all about you. In fact, it’s not even about you at all. I just want to go my way in peace, and leave you to yours. Why won’t you let me?

It’s true that I could simply ignore people when they say these things. And sometimes I do. But I’ve also learned – and this is, perhaps, my own narcissism – that I regret not speaking my mind far more often, and much more deeply, than speaking it. Saying something. Doing something.

But I’ve also learned that telling a narcissist that the world doesn’t revolve around him (or her) will bring you nothing but trouble, rage, and pain.

Right now, “go fuck yourself” is the best I’ve got.

*It’s not the first time, and I’m always offended by this. I’m not at all offended at being called a “dyke,” I’m offended that anyone thinks that’s an insult or some nasty obscenity or something. (For my dyke friends, I note that I was totally femmed out: makeup, long hair pulled back off my face with a headband, hoop earrings, fleur-de-lis print dress, and coat with a faux-fur lapel. Total Princess. I’m just sayin’.)

**Now before you go off thinking what kind of heartless ©**+ would yell “go fuck yourself” to a hungry human (besides a conservative), you should know this: I encounter panhandlers, homeless beggars, street musicians, etc. on a daily basis. I live in New York. This is how it is. And while I cannot give something to every single one of these people I encounter (I’d be broke in a week) on most occasions I give generously to them. Like to that astounding solo violinist I saw in Grand Central today. I carry Power Bars (because I’m diabetic) and frequently hand them over to anyone I encounter who is asking for help for food. (I am pretty sure I have given away more Power Bars than I have eaten myself.) I routinely hand over spare food, spare change, whatever I have available. I give money to Bowery Mission (and they’re Christian!), participate in food drives, coat drives, toy drives, and collections for needy families and individuals. My point is not to toot my own horn here about how magnanimous I am. In fact I never tell people I do this stuff (because, um, it’s definitely not about me). My point is this: I don’t think anyone I ever gave to felt the least bit entitled to critique my facial expressions. And I’m under no obligation to give narcissists food, money, or particular faces.

-Iris Vander Pluym
12/20/2007

From AP:

Chemical Explosion at Fox News Building

Dec 17th, 2007 | NEW YORK -- A small chemical explosion was reported Monday in the building that houses Fox News, officials said. One person was hurt.

The explosion happened at 10:39 a.m. on the building's 45th floor, which houses the heating and cooling systems for the 47-story building.

" We have some sort of reaction between two chemicals that caused a slight explosion," said fire spokesman Jim Long.

There are no offices on the floor, but three floors were evacuated.

The building is the headquarters for NewsCorp and houses Fox News and the New York Post, which were unaffected. Fox News is in the basement and continued broadcasting without interruption.

The injured person had cuts to the head, officials said.

-Monica Murphy
12/17/2007

Dear Senator Schumer

Thanks for your [reply] in which you explained that you voted for Mukasey “for one critical reason: the Department of Justice is a shambles and is in desperate need of a strong leader committed to depoliticizing the agency’s operations.” We can all see how hard Judge Mukasey is now working to repair the shambles that is the DOJ and to depoliticize the agency by thwarting any congressional investigation into the destruction of evidence of illegal torture by the CIA.

Are you going to support Senator Dodd’s filibuster of the FISA bill with telecom amnesty, or insure - yet again - that the Bush administration gets exactly what it wants? Since we can now be fairly sure the NSA and the Defense Department can read this email exchange (in order to protect us from terrorists) I think I know what your answer will be.

I wish I had the money of the telecom lobby or whoever else is greasing your palm and those of your Democratic colleagues like Jay Rockefeller and Diane Feinstein. But all I have is one vote. Still, I’m betting very few of your constituents want warrantless government surveillance of their private communications. Stand up for me, and all your constituents, or please RESIGN. Retire. Whatever.

I told Mrs. Clinton basically the same thing. Wonder if either one will show Senator Dodd and the U.S. Constitution any love tomorrow?

-Iris Vander Pluym
12/16/2007

* * * * *

1. The Bible is the inspired and only infallible Word of God.

2. There is one true God, eternally existent in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

3. In the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, in His personal future return to the earth in power and glory to rule for a thousand years.

4. In the blessed hope, the imminent return of Christ for overcoming believers.

5. In the fall and sinfulness of man and that the only means of being cleansed from sin is through repentance and faith in the redeeming blood of Christ.

6. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential to personal salvation.

7. Divine healing is available through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross.

8. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:4, is given to believers who ask for it. The Holy Spirit in a person’s life is evidenced by changes in his life, including a renewed love for God, and people, a commitment to the scriptures and holy living. The spirit filled believer has the capability of speaking with new tongues whether or not he or she chooses to exercise this gifting.

9. The Church of Jesus Christ is the universal, spiritual body of believers from every tribe, tongue, kindred and race of peoples, and is indwelt by God through the Holy Spirit and divinely empowered to fulfill ministry and her Great Commission on earth.

10. In the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a holy life.
11. In the resurrection and final judgment of both the saved and the lost, the saved to everlasting life and the lost to everlasting damnation.

12. In the new heavens and the new earth and the holy Jerusalem, the city of God, descending out of heaven and filled with the glory of God.

13. Christian growth can only be realized by faith in the promises of God.

14. Marriage is God-ordained. “The creator made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4-5). Marriage is to be an exclusive relationship, a lifelong faithful union between a man and a woman. This relationship between a husband and wife should parallel the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:23-30).

15. We practice two ordinances: (1) Water Baptism by immersion after repenting of one’s sins and receiving the gift of salvation. And (2) Holy Communion (the Lord’s Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s suffering and death for our salvation."

If you're with me so far, Titus is next: STAY HOME, AND OBEY YOUR HUSBAND.

Merry Christmas.

-Iris Vander Pluym
12/10/2007

* * * * *

On Wednesday, my Iraq war cheerleading local paper printed these two items on page 21 in a small sidebar entitled "World News":

Terror, Taliban spread

UNITED NATIONS - Al Qaeda remains determined to mount major attacks, has extended its base of support and has become more adept at communicating its message and operational plans, a UN report said yesterday.

At the same time, Taliban rebels fighting to regain control of Afghanistan have increased their influence not only there but in northwestern Pakistan and have money from the drug trade to hire foot soldiers and buy sophisticated weapons, the report said.

Deadly checkpoints

BAGHDAD - U.S. troops fired on vehicles at checkpoints in Baghdad and northern Iraq, killing a child and at least four other people, the military command said yesterday.

Roadblock shootings have consistently fed anti-U.S. sentiment among many Iraqis since the arrival of American forces in 2003. U.S. troops have been hit by suicide car bombs numerous times since 2003 and act quickly when a driver ignores orders to stop.

The rest of page 21 is splashed with bigger, bolder headlines, flashy banners, and paparazzi pics. It containe a lot of important information regarding the recent activities of Lindsay Lohan, "Kim (The Tush) Kardashian" and her sister Kourtney (whoever they are), Amy Winehouse, Edie Falco, Matt Dillon, and of course John Coulter, who apparently played a "steamy priest" in the pictures on the inside cover of Britney Spears' latest CD.

The next day, Thursday, the cute little "World News" sidebar reported this:

NATO's deadly mistake

KABUL, Afghanistan - NATO warplanes hunting Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan mistakenly bombed an Afghan road construction crew sleeping in tents, killing 14 workers, Afghan officials said yesterday.

The blunder follows sharp criticism this year of mass civilian casualties caused by U.S. and NATO-led troops that have undermined their reputation among civilians and hurt the government of President Hamid Karzai.

But the Big Story on page 23 Thursday, the one that warranted a huge, screaming headline, is about a "Racing Ace" winner on Dancing With the Stars, who ditched his "fianceé" for his19 year old dance partner. And there's a picture of the happy couple that is just adorable!

Now I would never, ever begrudge anyone the delicious enjoyment of such entertainment (I got a warm and fuzzy feeling reading about Tea Leoni's UNICEF award). But I guess if you have a newspaper, and you think sending the awesome U.S. military to invade and occupy various countries interminably is a super way to keep our citizens safe from terrorists, then why not print a picture of Lucy Liu's head that's bigger than the entire NATO story on the same page? Maybe no one will notice that all that righteous, "patriotic" warmongering on your editorial page is counterproductive. To put it mildly.

-Iris Vander Pluym
11/30/2007

* * * * *

Ooh, look. Here's a conservative pretending to understand science AND morality! (With bonus points for pointing out how "balanced and measured" Bush's stem cell position was in 2001.)

-Iris

* * * * *

Metal Shutter Houses.

-Monica Murphy
11/29/2007

* * * * *

Ann Coulter and the rest of the Flat Earth Society won't understand it, but this is astounding.

-Iris Vander Pluym
11/28/2007

* * * * *

 To Die For.

Some closet case with a rich fantasy life that’s apparently fixated around a swooning crush on Jack Bauer wrote the New York Daily News a letter, which they published today:

Tick, tick, tick…
Oceanside, LI.: Here’s a question for liberal politicians and the Hollywood elite: If a nuclear bomb were placed in your community, and the military had a suspect in custody who knew the location and time of detonation, would you approve waterboarding the suspect? Or would you have the courage to die for your convictions?
-Joseph J. Rebando

Maybe I’m wrong (I’m not), but Mr. Rebando seems to imply that lib’ruls are a bunch a pussies, a quivering mass of weak little pansies who clearly lack the tough moral fiber Real Men show by torturing suspects in order to, you know, keep us all safe from the terr’ists.

Now I’m no liberal politician - and pretty much as far as you can get from “Hollywood elite” – but I would certainly die for this conviction: That America stands for something greater than safety-at-any-price. We don’t live in a police state (well not yet, pending a Giuliani presidency) even though we’d certainly all be safer from violent criminals if we did. Let’s assume for a second that a U.S. policy of torturing suspects actually makes us all safer (even though there is no evidence of this, and a very strong case that it does the opposite). The Constitution places the highest value not on safety (real or imagined), but on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Last time I checked there was no caveat “provided that first, everybody’s 100% safe from murderers at all times, no matter what the Executive Branch has to do to ensure this.”

What the hell have countless American soldiers fought and died for? For the principles in that document. It is the very source of American greatness. Yes, I would die for those convictions, as would any patriot. We can assume Mr. Rebando would not since he would simply abandon them, all because nineteen delusional punk-ass sociopaths turned jets into bombs....using boxcutters.

Our country has faced far greater threats from foreign enemies (The Soviets? The Nazis? The freaking British Navy? Hello?). It’s our enemies at home, the ones who think like Mr. Rebando, that are a greater menace and more imminent danger to the United States.

-Iris Vander Pluym
11/8/2007

* * * * *

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Waterboarding But Were Afraid to Ask:

Here.  

-Monica Murphy
11/7/2007

* * * * *

 Fuck Chuck.

Last Friday after I tried calling his office all afternoon but got only busy signals, I wrote this email to my Senator, Chuck Schumer:

MSNBC is reporting that you announced you are voting in favor of Mukasey, who ruled as a federal judge in the Padilla case that the President has the power to detain American citizens on U.S. soil, indefinitely, without ever charging them with a crime. I wonder what, in your opinion, could possibly be more unconstitutional, more radical, more un-American and more disqualifying than that? I thought you swore to uphold the constitution. If you vote this way, I hope you never plan to run for office again because you will not deserve the trust of those who put you there.

I want my country back. Please do your job and start helping to fix this disaster, or resign.

Today, The New York Times ran an Op-Ed by Mr. Schumer, in which he argues, basically, that he’s voting for Mukasey because, you know, he’s probably better than whatever other sociopath nutjob Bush would appoint to head the Justice Department if Mukasey isn’t confirmed. So a guy who claims he doesn’t know whether waterboarding is illegal torture, and thinks it’s 100% okay to imprison American citizens indefinitely without charges on the President’s say-so, is totally going to straighten out the complete mess Bush’s last appointee made of the Justice Department because he's better than the unknown. Mukasey displays complete contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution, and all the fine character traits of an authoritarian sociopath. This is who we are putting in charge of the freaking Justice Department.

My email to Mr. Schumer today:

I read your Op-Ed in which you argue, with no basis, that Mukasey is likely better than some hypothetical alternative Bush appointee. That is the lamest argument I can imagine. So you and your colleagues would praise the character of a man who ruled as he did in the Padilla case, and who claims he doesn’t know whether waterboarding is torture? Is this what America stands for? Do you yourself stand for any principles whatsoever? This guy is another right wing authoritarian who anyone with any sense knows is not going to straighten out Justice, and will give this lawbreaking Administration absolutely everything it wants. Just like you do.

Mr. Schumer, you’re no longer part of the problem, you ARE the problem. And today’s Op-Ed is Exhibit A.

Fuck him.

-Monica Murphy
11/6/2007

* * * * *

 NOV 5, 2007

No Power in Prayer. And Thank God!

One of the worst aspects of having Bush as President is that the longer he’s in office, the more emboldened many other unintelligent sociopaths of a similar strain become. It used to be that people who are clearly deranged would be dismissed from serious discourse as kooks, and for the most part that kept a lid on them (or at least kept them out of the way of normal Americans). But now that one of their own holds the most powerful office on earth, like-minded lunatics feel much more emboldened to just go ahead and projectile vomit whatever batshit crazy drivel is rattling around in their heads.

Take for instance Concerned Women For America, the prominent conservative coven with a direct line to the White House. This fine organization spews vile banalities daily, mostly the usual anti-gay and pro-coathanger-as-birth-control rhetoric. I could be wrong, but it seems to me CWA and their ilk used to keep their more delusional rants under tighter wraps than this:

CWA President Wendy Wright recently testified to the deep power of prayer stating that, "A former abortion clinic manager told me, after she left the abortion business and became a Christian, that if even a few people were outside their clinic praying they would see a difference inside the clinic. Fewer women would keep their appointments and confusion would reign - equipment would not work, and workers would fight amongst themselves. The presence of humble Christians praying to a mighty God has an effect."

Just what you want at a women’s health clinic, right? Malfunctioning equipment, staff coming to blows and a general atmosphere of pandemonium - all of this a direct result of the incredible mind control powers of a couple people hanging outside. We can put aside for a second the supernatural power delusions of these “humble Christians.” What’s truly alarming is that people would openly wish for this sick scenario to play out. Pray for it, and encourage others to do so.

It’s not really surprising: this is the kind of amoral, grotesque viciousness that is the hallmark of the right wing conservatism, and it is no accident that conservative Christianity appeals to such people. Of course there have always been cruel and demented souls among us; it’s why we have prisons. But surely having a president who openly endorses such views only encourages these poor deluded folks to think that their sickness is actually a force for good in the world. One need only look at what they themselves say they desire to put that fiction to rest.

There was a time when that kind of talk would get you a padded cell. Nowadays it might get you a fancy, oval office.

-Iris Vander Pluym
11/5/2007

* * * * *

  NOV 4, 2007

A Fetish for Hierarchy

In her essay “My Liberation from Feminism,” Carolyn McCulley points out the essential incompatibility of biblical precepts with “feminism.”* She also perfectly illustrates the obsessive fetish for hierarchy inherent in the conservative worldview, and why Christian doctrine and dogma is so irresistibly appealing to those likewise inclined.

Ms. McCulley catalogs for us feminism’s “disastrous cultural effects,” all of which are due to women getting all uppity and acting like individual people or something:

… . we have given [men] a plethora of ways to duck responsibility for the relationships they initiate and the children they create. The cultural indices of this failure continue to climb: pornography, child abuse, public murders of estranged wives, fatherless children, and sexually transmitted diseases to name a few.

Wow! What horrifying tragedy women have wrought! None of those problems, of course, could possibly be the result of any man’s sense of superiority and entitlement engendered(!) in the crucible of a patriarchal culture. Nah.

Not surprisingly, in her “feminist” teens, Ms. McCulley was already viewing her world through the lens of a male/female dualistic hierarchy:

… I felt I always had to prove something to the boys - that I could be faster, smarter, and more aggressive than they were … How I gloated and swaggered when Billy Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in a well-publicized "battle of the sexes" tennis match!

Couldn’t she just be smarter or faster than some people, dumber and slower than other people – male and female? I was, weren’t you? No, she had to prove she was smarter, faster and more aggressive than “they” were. Them. The Others, the Opposites, the Completely Different Species. And on an unrelated note (not really) “gloating and swaggering,” as everyone knows, means one possesses the fine moral character to make an excellent president!

But back to Ms. McCulley’s bible study:

. . . . .

From Genesis, I came to understand that God is purposeful in his creation. From the Gospels, I came to understand that God is purposeful in his redemption. I saw he was quite serious about sexual purity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. I was also convicted that abortion was a terribly selfish action to avoid the consequences of sexual sin. Just as importantly, I saw that God had made me female, and that he had specific tasks and roles for women that would glorify him to an unbelieving, yet watching, world.

Here is the root of the problem: when someone accepts that this book contains the actual words of a god, they (and we) are already in a world of shit. For instance, one will not question how this book, though written by an actual god, could be so internally (infernally!) contradictory. Or question why, if it’s written by a god, it is so easily subject to wildly differing interpretations, often with horribly violent consequences. Or question why this book – and only this book – should obviate every other sacred text in human history, such as the Quran. An objective observer with even an iota of human empathy would certainly reject it as a deeply flawed if not downright dangerous guide for human morality. Why would anyone, ever, accept it as such? Unless, of course, a person already has authoritarian tendencies and/or S&M fantasies, and really, really likes what the god says in his book….

Once one swallows that word-of-god pill, it is a very short hop indeed to knowing that this god has “specific tasks and roles for women.” And they can all be fairly well summed up thusly: submission.

Now just hypothetically, could those women who enthusiastically embrace and embody those “specific tasks and roles” be an appealing partner to a controlling, narcissistic asshole with a sense of superiority and entitlement? I’m just sayin’. And, maybesome women really get off on submission to males, sexually and/or otherwise? (Though it must be said that Mistress Simone's dungeon wouldn’t be quite so full of naughty boys if this proclivity were innate to the female gender alone.) I’m thinking it’s just probably much more palatable, for everyone involved, if certain heterosexuals’ perverse little penchants are ultimately desirable by a god. A male god. I’m just sayin’…

. . . . .

In fact, when I was focused on the "limitations" I perceived in a wife’s submission to her husband, I showed that I had failed to understand that submission undergirds the entire concept of Christianity. My greatest role model for submission is my Lord himself whose obedient submission guaranteed my redemption. As Hebrews 5:7 says, "During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

Roger that! Submission most certainly undergirds the entire concept of Christianity. Well maybe not the entire concept – just ask the pope who he’s been submitting to lately! But I think it’s fair to say that according to the bible, some people – let’s call them “women” – should be doing quite a bit more of the submitting than other people.

And am I missing something in the quoted scripture? As I read it, this god’s son (who is also the god) loudly whines and cries and begs his dad to save him from death. First of all, what respectable god goes around crying like a spoiled little girl? And, more importantly, what kind of example does this set for parents? The kid whines and cries so his dad, a god fer chrissakes, finally caves like a Democratic Congress and gives the wailing crybaby everything he wants. (No wonder Western culture is a rotting morass of sin when this is the example of permissiveness our own gods set with their children!) But apparently I am missing the point. According to Ms. McCulley, the important lesson to be gleaned here is that the god saves his kid from death not out of compassion, like any decent father would, no. Rather, we are told, he does so precisely because the kid is a groveling, histrionic submissive. And one we should emulate, ‘specially womem. Paging Mistress Simone.…

. . . . .

While the world tells us we have no valid knowledge to share unless we have experienced a particular aspect of life, God’s Word equips us for wise discernment regardless of our experiences - or perhaps, in spite of them!

By all means, let's ignore the hard-won wisdom of our own experience – and that of every other human who lived over the past 2,000 years as well. The bible, you see, tells us everything we ever need to know to wisely discern everything about everything. (It’s an especially comprehensive resource on patriarchal sadism, narcissism, and how to practice the precise forms of genocide and slavery god approves of – an absolute “must read” for all aspiring conservatives!)

So let’s just not read any other books. Anything we might think we know, but that is not in agreement with this god’s words, is only going to confuse us all and lead us into sin.

. . . . .

For me, self-control is to limit these detailed conversations to my accountability partners and to those over me in the Lord, such as my small group leader and his wife or my pastor and his wife. They know how I am weak, and they prayerfully encourage me to keep my focus where it belongs.

(OH, FOR THE LOVE OF HEIRARCHY! …. “those over me in the Lord?” Why don't you just ask them to spank you? Everyone will love it!)

…..

I was not equipped to see that my own sin was the greatest yoke of slavery. As we have all done since Adam and Eve, I blamed others for the oppression of sin in my life. I thought I needed to be set free from men who belittled women, from jobs that were "stuck" in the "pink ghetto" of women’s work, and from the "burdens" of traditional sexual morals. I could not see that my own self-righteousness, pride, anger, and willfulness caused greater damage to real joy than any perceived curtailment to my freedom.

Adam and Eve were real! And they have so much to teach us! Mainly about …. wait for it…..that great American value of freedom! Through submission.

Aw, honey. You may have no sense of pride left, and lost your “anger and willfulness” (or, as some might say, “spirit”), but your self-righteousness is perfectly intact.

The hierarchy preference is a well-documented symptom of conservative “thought,” and the only available lens through which all relationships, personal, professional and institutional, are viewed. It is the crucial underpinning of everything conservative, from the neocon doctrine of unchecked executive power (all hail King George!), to the administration’s thuggish foreign policy, to old-school, “traditional family values” sexism. See, somebody always has to be the Top Dog, the Codpiece-in-Chief, the one who “wears the pants” in this house. Or else nothing is right in the world. So three co-equal branches of government – designed to protect citizens from tyrants – can never be countenanced. And even in our most intimate relationships, in our own homes, co-equal is an inconceivably immoral arrangement. Someone must lead, and someone must submit. Guess who?

It should go without saying that the great American value of equality is entirely incompatible with a conservative hierarchical worldview.

Why do they hate America?
_____________________

* Note: by “feminism,” Ms. McCulley means “marginalizing men through anger,” “perpetual victimhood, disrespect toward all men, an overt embrace of lesbianism, and a broadly directed militant anger” whereas this writer means that women are people, and as such are infinitely more similar to men than they are different.

-Iris Vander Pluym
11/4/2007