Thursday, March 11, 2010 You Are Here: politics&power  | 
The Regulars
 
How to Unseat Obama in 2012
 
In my fourth and final installment of “A Moderate Conservative Approach to Abortion,” I expressed my undying love for Barack Obama. Although I didn’t describe myself as “Obama-gay” like the general editor of this commie rag, I did claim that I voted for Comrade Obama because he made me proud to be an American. I did, however, misspell his name. But that was to serve the purpose of “reverse irony,” a concept I do not fully understand yet fully embrace nonetheless (thank you Banality Smith—you have enriched my life with your keen insights). As much as I love all that Obama represents on a global scale, I have decided to vote for platform over personality in the next election. 
 
The consensus is that the leveled economy will buy Obama four more years. Indeed, if we see a sustained upsurge corresponding with the next round of debates, Obama’s reelection might be a forgone conclusion. But I here offer a strategy that will give the GOP a snowball’s chance in Washington.
 
The first step toward recovery is recognizing that you have a problem. For the GOP, the glaring dysfunction is that of discord. Right now there is a rift between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives. Mitt Romney may well represent the best of both, but he unless he flips his position on Mormonism, he will never unify the party. Considering he’s flipped on almost all of his other positions, religious conversion might be consistent with his character. Of course, there is the “stick up the arse” problem as well. This demon is a bit more difficult to exorcise (ask Al Gore). No, the GOP needs a pious, fiscal conservative to unite the Bible bumpkins with the ditto-heads.
 
Several people not named Sarah Palin can do this; I suggest the following name to represent a type of candidate rather than suggesting this is the only man for the job:
 
Eric Cantor.
 
Eric Cantor has several qualities that converge toward the politically advantageous. 1. He's the GOP Whip, a five term congressman. In short, he is established in Washington—something which has proved a major obstacle for Obama. 2. He is known for two things, (a) his fiscal conservatism and (b) a recent comment he made about “Judeo-Christian” values. Never mind that the comment had to do with foreign policy, Evangelicals have selective hearing anyway. 3. He is from Virginia, which has recently become a swing state. 4. He has that nice, clean-cut, young man look; he easily wins the grandma vote. 4. He serves on the Ways and Means committee and the Task Force on Terrorism committee. Thus he is already a power-broker where it matters. 5. He is a doctor of jurisprudence and a graduate from an Ivy League school. Thus he seems smart. This is always more important than actually being smart—but it helps to be both and he is.
 
This will come as no newsflash to anybody left of red-state propaganda, but none of the above factors are enough to unseat Obama. The ascension of someone like Cantor is only the first step. Step two requires cutting a hole in the box… actually two holes. While a Cantor-type can bleed Obama’s base from the right, he cannot be unseated without also bleeding him from the left. So here is step two:
 
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 
Even in the best case scenario, a unified GOP will only have a chance if a viable, liberal candidate runs as an independent. Hilary Clinton has just enough screw-you to make this work. 1. She can hit Obama hard on foreign policy. Obama ran against her on promises of peace, yet he has done very little differently than George W. Bush. While this indictment cannot be made from the right, it is Obama’s Achilles heel. 2. Clinton has long been the favorite candidate of the gay-rights movement. Obama’s reticence to advocate gay-marriage makes him vulnerable from the left. 3. Clinton remains the only viable option to steal the women’s vote and is perhaps the most qualified person of either gender in either party. She would never win as an independent, but she might run just for the principle of it.
 
An independent candidate like Clinton would only need to steal away five percent of the Democratic vote to level the playing field for a Cantor-type. The mistake Republicans made in the last election (and continue to make) was to try and be as progressive as the democrats. The key is not to attempt to combine religion with XX chromosomes, the key is to combine the two things that can unite the base: anti-taxation and perceived piety. In other words, the GOP candidate can be a rich, white frat-boy, as long as the independent candidate is a gay-loving, peacenik in a dress suit.
 
Finally, the GOP must take the moral high ground (or at least what passes for the moral high ground in Dobson country). While Clinton is drawing Obama into discussions of gay-rights and bringing the troops home, the GOP candidate will be throwing the spotlight onto the wellbeing of the working poor, the rights of the unborn and smaller government. The kinds of debates Obama will be forced to have with his liberal counterpart will make the conservative talking points look like the only sensible platform.
 
Obama is iconic, historic and ultimately healing for American in many ways. But he can still hold this legacy as a one-term candidate.

 
An Open Letter to my Republican Facebook Friend
 
I have resisted responding to your political comments because I don’t really know you. But I’m having a hard time keeping silent now after reading an exchange between you and T______. To remind you of this conversation, you updated your status by saying, “I am wondering, since Bush gets the blame for the economy, will he get the blame for the FBI that stopped 2 terrorist plots as well?” Let’s not dwell on the second use of the word “blame”. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since some people seem to think you’re smart and perhaps that your technological career choice may not foster a more accurate lexicography. What I want to focus on is this line deep in your thread. You said, “I love the military and my only regret in life is not serving, especially after 9/11.  What I was saying was: it had been 9 months and Obama keeps saying he inherited the economy. Just thinks it disengenuous to not say he inherited the homeland security policies.” Again, we’ll ignore the misspellings, split infinitives, and subject-verb disagreement in the last line and look at the first.
You love the military and your only regret in life is not serving, especially after 9/11? Seriously? Not to sound politically incorrect (as if you would care), but what a pussy! You had NINE years to enlist and erase that single blot on your life and you didn’t do it? You are such a chicken hawk! And guess what, I know your skills at logic might be lacking, but it is still technically “after 9/11,” so why don’t you bone up and serve? It’s not as if they won’t take you. You don’t think there might be a need for an aeronautical engineer in the military? That’s what you say you are. You probably won’t even risk getting your chicken shit ass shot at with your ostensible skills. You disgust me if that’s your only regret in life.
Okay, now that we got that in the open, let’s discuss your profile pic. This is the image of yourself that you choose to convey to your “Friends,” and an indiscriminate set of these friends you have, too. Again, I’m not sure we’ve shared more than a few words between us over the years, but I thought it would be rude to say no to your advances. Whatever the case, you’ve chosen an eye-catching and odd outward image with which to identify yourself. Most people choose some picture of themselves or family, sometimes humorous, sometimes serious. The background is often a cool green, blue, or white depending on the setting of the photo. You, on the other hand, chose the Gadsden Flag—that bright yellow banner with a coiled rattlesnake underscored with the words “DON’T TREAD ON ME.”
If I remember correctly, you changed to this profile pic around the time of the inauguration of Barack Obama. This is no surprise since you clearly don’t agree with his policies and do not shy from expressing your opinions. You actually attended a tea party and told everyone. You joined groups proud of George W. Bush. You belong to fan clubs of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Bachmann. You’ve expressed your distaste for taxes, unions, and health care reform. Your political stance is clear—right wing status quo Republican.
But here’s my problem with you expressing yourself in this way: That’s a very specific “me” in “don’t tread on me.” That’s a white, middle class, employed with benefits, heterosexual, relatively healthy, American “me”. You are saying, don’t tread on me… thou can be trod upon, however.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand your desire for freedom, but it seems that people have only felt the need to express this desire when the fear of higher taxes entered the picture, as if purchasing power is the be-all-end-all power in the world. Where were these flags when the PATRIOT act was being debated? Where were these flags during the administration of FISA?
Okay, fine, perhaps you felt your rights infringed upon back then and we weren’t yet friends on Facebook. However, this is not the type of thing you seem to oppose, so forgive me. You have instead made disparaging remarks regarding unions. However, unions are legal because they aren’t illegal. They seem to me to be a part of the free market—this particular market being for employment and not widgets. You have also expressed disgust for ACORN, ostensibly because they cost the government, and you by proxy, money. But where is your vocal displeasure for other more costly government funded groups like KBR, Boeing, and Blackwater? Why, exactly, is ACORN a bigger threat to your civil liberties than extremely expensive war profiteers?
If I were to guess, you chose to embrace that flag at this time because you realized that, however you gained your money and power, you have a lot and so have a lot to lose if the status quo is threatened. So, your placement in your work’s hierarchy is threatened by unions. If the government were to create a law restricting organized labor, I’m guessing you would hail that choice because it would preserve your freedoms. You would remain untrodden. You are quick to voice your opinions on political matters, but you have remained silent for the rights of gay marriage. Is that because it doesn’t affect you one way or another?
On health care, you seem to be opposed to reform. Surely you must understand that a healthier demos makes for a freer one. If you were seriously ill, would you say you would be less or more free? But you have no worries about that since you have health care.
Hey, maybe I’m misunderstanding you and by “don’t tread on me” you actually mean that very specific “you” while the rest of us can suck it. You would feel differently about causes if the causes affected you in other ways. By touting that flag when you did, you say more about yourself than you do about the current administration—one which hasn’t yet raised taxes, repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or the PATRIOT act, or really done much substantially different from the previous administration.
What it has done is stopped torturing people and come close to passing a health care reforming bill that might actually cover more people and lower the deficit. Do you care to explain how these new actions threaten your civil liberties?
 No you don’t. Why? Because, as I said in the second paragraph, you’re a pussy. You’re afraid to go against you’re initial beliefs or what you learned on Hannity, so you don’t think too long about what it is you believe or what it actually means to believe it. You also clearly don’t spend much time discussing your beliefs with people who disagree with you, since you got so flustered in your conversation with T_____.

Which brings me to my conclusion. Pussy.

 

Obama wins Peace Prize; Americans taken for Fools

by C.C. O’Lorin

 

The members of the Nobel committee think that Americans are fools. They must. And really, who can disagree? We were foolish enough to be sold an unethical war against a country that had done us no harm. We were sold a war that had no realistic budget and no exit strategy. Then we were foolish enough to elect the idiots who sold that clusterfuck to us to a second term. We are like the little old lady next door with fourteen cats who is allergic to cats. We are like the parents of a 30-year-old jobless son and continue to lend him gas money. We are like the girl who continues to date an asshole who cheats on her time and again. Americans are the Rembrandts of folly. This is known the world over.

           

Last week, Barrack Obama was awarded 1.4 million dollars and shiny gold medal. All this, not for the peace has promoted in the world, but for the peace to which he aspires. Let’s be clear, for all the wounds Obama has healed, he is fighting two wars, has upheld Bush’s detainment policies, has not closed Guantanamo Bay, and continues to privilege big business over the poor.

           

Hey, nobody lobbied for Obama more than me. A year ago, this here webzine was my personal bully pulpit for Obama’s campaign. I am pretty much Obama-gay. And I am not fickle about my gayness. My mancrush is still bubbling with bromance. I am more than willing to give Obama a full term to make good on his promise and promises. The Nobel committee, on the other hand, is ready to see some action now and has employed some tried and true child-psychology to make it happen.

           

If a five-year-old child has problem sharing his toys, you say, “Parker, I know that you’ll share that toy with Aiden because I know that you are such a big boy and big boys share.” Nine times out of ten, that trick works the first time. (Of course, it works less and less with continued application.) By praising a child for what he has not yet done, you can trick him into doing it. If you try this with a five-year-old, you’re enlightened—if you try this with an adult, you’re condescending. Only a fool will not see through that trick. But, if you try this trick with an adult, and it works (!), what does this say about said adult?

 

Don’t get me wrong, Obama is anything but. Dude is a world-class strategician and a political savant. He shrewdly accepted the prize with humility and took it as further motivation for his aspirations for peace (i.e. he said the right things). It would have served no political purpose to turn down the prize once the media was focused. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the Nobel committee outfoxed the fox on this one.

 

By awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the committee placed the words “Obama” and “Peace” in the same sentence and then turned on a bright, hot spotlight. In other words, they shouted into a megaphone, “Hey stupid! Obama is a man of Peace!!”

 

By doing so, Obama’s promises to not be Bush are remembered most acutely. All of the sudden, Obama’s agendas for Iraq and Afghanistan get put back on the front burner. Obama now has no choice but to become a president who merits his award before reelection. Hopefully, this trick works long enough to judge his first term beyond our myopic obsession with the economy. I for one hope we are foolish enough to be convinced that he really can be what they want him to be. If so, he will become just that—or do a really good Jimmy Carter impression.

 

 
A Moderate Conservative Approach to Abortion, Part Four:
Becoming like Obama, without Obama
by Kermit Pitsfield

 

I, like many social conservatives, voted for Barrack Obama. It wasn’t because I wanted to be a part of an historic event, nor was it because I needed to appease my white man’s burden. I voted for him because he represented an alternative to cynicism. I wasn’t old enough to vote for Kennedy or Reagan and so my entire political life had been spent voting against the worse of two evils. Indeed, after the War-President became a lame duck, I had had quite enough of evil. I was ready, anxious even, to vote for a candidate rather than against one. I knew full well that Obama held many views opposite my own, including the issue of abortion. I knew full well that Obama would likely appoint two Supreme Court judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade. Still, I was ready to be patriotic again, and Obama made me proud to be an American. Obama represented our best and brightest in an age where presidents are measured by their folksy charm.

            I say unabashedly that Obama’s message of hope was profound and true. While it was scoffed by many of my conservative brethren, it is no small feat to get millions of apathetic Gen-Xers to hope (indeed, billions if you count Obama’s global impact). The ability to rally a sleeping giant is remarkable and we may never see anything like it again for generations. So it is with great deliberation and a heavy heart that I tell you that I have decided to vote republican in 2012.

            For me, it comes right down to the abortion issue. The plain truth of the matter is that when I hear the beating heart of an unborn human, I perceive life. When I see that tiny pollywog of a human via sonogram, I perceive life. Something deep within me doesn’t allow me to perceive a proto-human, or a pre-life. It looks and feels like an unborn baby to me. I can see the other side of this argument, but I just can’t change my gut feeling that terminating a pregnancy requires the premeditation of human death. As much as I love Obama, he is against the rights of the unborn.

            To his credit, Obama’s stance on this issue is more moderate than many liberals. He rightly finds the common ground between a rabidly ideological divide. According to Obama, the common ground is that we all want less unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps with this in mind, we can forge a way past our differences. His is a noble effort to be sure. However, his recognition of common ground does not strike to the heart of the issue for pro-lifers. While we care deeply about the social ramifications of unwanted children, the heart of the issue is the sanctity of human life. We feel that life is innately valuable even when it is unwanted.  Moreover, for those of us who are religiously motivated, it is the unwanted among us that are most in need of advocacy.

            Now, if you’ve followed the three essays that preceded this one, you’ll know that I am deeply troubled and altogether disgusted with the hypocrisy and stupidity of the pro-life movement. We need a soul-search, a face-life, and a new agenda. We need to get people to care for a noble cause rather than demonize the other guy. We need to be more like Obama. Ironically, in order for this to happen, it will be necessary to vote against Obama in 2012. Next week will be my last installment of this series. In it I will provide a roadmap for the Republican Party in the next presidential election. I will explain how to unseat Obama in 2012.

 

 
That 16th Minute
 
Every night before I go to bed, I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for inventing the Palins. I can’t get enough of this family, and the good news is, they are never going away. Even when the failed bid for the White House in 2012 comes and goes, there is a reality show producer somewhere that will convince them that it will be a good idea for them to have a camera in their house 24 hours a day. They could make it a pay per view deal and I would gladly shell out my hard earned cash to watch Todd get yelled at for a late night naked snowmobile joyride. 
 
Some people would lay low after a crushing political defeat and try to restore their image by doing the best job they could as Governor, but not Mrs. Palin. She decided that the best way to demonstrate that she is a relevant and knowledgeable candidate to be a world leader is to quit midterm and go on a book tour. Amazingly, her memoirs are already a best seller before they even hit the shelves demonstrating that America is like me – hopelessly in love with Sarah Palin. 
 
The best part of all this is she might actually be a viable candidate in 2012. I don’t foresee people actually voting her into the Presidency unless maybe Obama’s approval rating dips even further when he can’t secure Chicago’s bid for the 2064 Olympics, but I could definitely see the Republican Party having nowhere else to turn. I still won’t put it past voting Americans to be wooed into thinking we need her brand of down home charm and ignorance. Voters in ’08 said, “She talks how we talk, and I can relate to that.” Yes, but that is because you are an inbred fucktard, but fortunately for the GOP, those fucktards are registered. Nothing, including common sense, can stop this woman. 
 
Even Levi Johnston is back in the news. You remember Levi, the guy that had unprotected sex with the daughter of a Vice Presidential candidate. After Levi and Bristol Palin's split up, he has been able to cash in on his talent of being the lime in Bristol's coconut. He has leveraged his fame into being an actual actor in a pistachio commercial. Pistachios don’t sell themselves and if there is one guy that knows nuts first hand, it’s Levi Johnston.
 
Speaking of nuts, Levi’s will soon be on display as he is now going to pose nude for Playgirl magazine. If you’re like me you were shocked when you heard the news, maybe not so much because Levi will be baring all but because I didn’t even realize Playgirl still existed. Scrotum shots are still in demand I suppose. I can only imagine the subtitle of the spread: Nailin’ Palin or Bristol’s Pistol or Look, it’s a no talent media whore with his wiener hanging out. Johnston’s publicist, Tank Jones, believes this will help launch Levi’s acting and modeling career. 
 
Tank? Really? So we already have a Willow, Piper, Trigg, Bristol and her son, Tripp and now we have a Tank? I know things are little wacky in Alaska but everyone sounds like they either have a GI Joe code name or their parents are just plain crazy. Hi, welcome to Juneau, I’ll be your tour guide Taint McGillicutty. This is my wife, Shazbot.
 
I suppose we can credit the Palins with bringing Alaska back to the forefront of our collective minds as, like Playgirl, I forgot all about it. Now we have a better understanding of how things operate up there. Alaskans elected Sarah Palin in the first place and without them putting this grossly unqualified, yet enchanting, yokel into power, we would have never had the 2008 winkfest that I so fondly remember. Maybe the Palins aren’t that unique, maybe they are in fact your typical Alaskan folk who field dress their moose one throat to anus slice at a time. 
 
In other words, 24 hours of daylight really fucks with your head.

 
From the New Deal to the Raw Deal
 
As this decade draws to a close, there is no doubt in my mind that the American political landscape is stranger now than any other decade of my life. Perhaps if my memory was longer, I’d compare these farcical nine years to the sixties, or the thirties, or the mid-eighteen hundreds. But I doubt it. Perhaps historians will view the W legacy on par with Nixon’s. Perhaps a cripple in the Oval Office is ultimately less likely than an ethnic minority. No doubt, the tragedy of September 11th pales in comparison to the tragedy of the Civil War. But Americans are at home with scandal, we eat it up really. And as long as tragedy can be televised, we welcome that too. In these ways, the aughts were no different than previous decades. What makes this decade unique is not tragedy, nor scandal, nor even progress. What we have achieved beyond precedent can be measured in the bizarre.
           
The election of Bush can be explained simply. After Bill Clinton was impeached (yes, he actually was) the republican with the biggest war chest was going to win. That he was a monkey with a trigger finger barely mattered. Thems is politics of the oldest kind. What continues to blow my mind, what continues to make me feel like I’m in an Esher drawing, is that Forgetful Jones was elected for a second term… still even that is reminiscent of Nixon. So no, as bizarre as the W years were, we have not quite reached the pinnacle of the bizarre.
           
I’m not talking about Obama either. Don’t get me wrong, the ’08 Iowa caucus might mark a turning point in American racial history. But in many ways, Obama’s viability was a product of our collective dissatisfaction with the Bushes and the Clintons. Of course, it didn’t hurt that Obama’s staff figured out how to use youtube. No matter how unlikely it was for someone with Muslim heritage to become president, we have not quite reached the pinnacle of the bizarre.
           
My dear people, I submit to you the name Arnold Schwarzenegger. I contend that the ascent of Schwarzenegger is by far the oddest stupid human trick of them all. No doubt you will refer me to the 1970’s version of Ronald Reagan. I am happy to note the parallels between them: (1) Both were actors before their political careers. (2) Both were republicans. This is where the comparisons end. Reagan’s was a slow ascent. He moved from the screen actors’ guild to General Electric before he put his name on a ballot. He served on Barry Goldwater’s campaign before he ran for office. Reagan was an engaging public speaker with a million dollar smile. Reagan could say the word California without sounding like an SNL sketch. Hands down, Schwarzenegger’s gubernatorial victory is far stranger than Reagan’s.
           
The vacancy created by Gray Davis wasn’t just a passing failure. The State of California was in serious economic trouble. When Davis was ousted, the cry was for an economic genius who would chart a path toward recovery. Okay, that’s an overstatement; politicians are not geniuses by default. But there was a cry for a fiscally-minded governor. In product, employment, geography, and population, California is larger than most countries. If California was autonomous, it would be the sixth largest economy in the world.
           
So given that the need was so dire and the stakes were so high, one would think that some dot com CEO would have stepped in. Or perhaps a career politician with a track record for balancing budgets. Or perhaps a horse who could hoof out long-division. Instead, the least likely possibility became reality.
           
When Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on Jay Leno (wish I was making this up) the audience hooted with glee. The appropriate response was inaudible guffaw, but what do you expect from a studio audience? I mean, Letterman announced that he cheated on his wife with subordinates and his audience hooted with glee. Unfortunately, the general population of California (it seems) is well-represented by the studio audience of a mediocre late-night variety show.
           
If it had ended there, nothing noteworthy would have happened. After all, forty names were on that ballot including a substitute teacher, a stripper, and Gary Coleman (again, historical fact). All you really need to get your name on the ballot of California governor’s ballot is six hundred dollars and a pen with blue or black ink. But winning the highest office of the most populous state in the Union is another thing entirely.
           
Leading democratic hopeful, Phil Angelides had presided over the state treasury. Arnold was the Chairman for the California Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. *
 
*Editor’s note: Mr. O’Lorin was unable to finish this article as the all consuming depression of being a California resident being led by the Running Man was too much to bear. Mr. O’Lorin has last been seen checking out real estate in Minnesota because he is a big fan of Stuart Smalley.

 

Hannity’s America is not the United States of America

By Ivan Goddard

 

“And you know look we have an enormous audience that comes in every night to watch the O’Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel. And if I were what he says I am, I couldn’t possibly succeed. Alright? People wouldn’t sit for it. Americans are fair people by and large. Um, so what this is the usual propaganda that he puts out and tries to make money by defaming. And it’s a shame, but that’s just the way it is. You know, he does it to a lot of other people. Uh and unfortunately there’s a market for that. Uh there’s a there are people who enjoy um reading and listening to people who attack other people with whom they disagree, personally. You know, not the- forget the issues. I mean, let’s try to destroy the person. And this kind of defamation is growing in the United States, and it’s uh it’s really damaging to the country.”

                                                            --Bill O’Reilly on “Fresh Air”, October 8, 2003

            According to Fox News, America is a liberal nation. That is, in using their own logic, it is clear that “Real America” is merely a small faction of Real + Fake America. Allow me to show you why.

            People on the right in America like to claim that the Mainstream Media, or MSM, is liberal by and large. Fox News, according to itself, is by contrast “Fair and Balanced.” Fox News also likes to tout its ratings as evidence that it hears the voice of America more than the liberal MSM. It does, after all, win the cable news ratings game week after week. For instance, in the latest rankings I could find, FNC generated 3,122,000 viewers during prime time while CNN, MSNBC, Headline News, and CSPAN generated a combined 2,794,000 viewers. Fox, then, easily beat the liberal stations, generating well over 50% of total viewers. Impressive, no doubt. Now, let’s forget the fact that 3,122,000 viewers makes up roughly 1% of the population of America and assume that the general TV watching audience is the rough ideological makeup of the country as a whole

Here’s the problem with that logic, though. Fox doesn’t claim that merely the rest of cable news is liberal, but the entire MSM. So we’ll have to add the other TV news ratings. The problem with this is that not many other news programs register on ratings lists because they don’t generate as many viewers on network TV as other shows. However, Dateline NBC and 60 Minutes do. I’m sure those two shows qualify as MSM and I’m sure the average Fox host believes them to be liberal since one is on NBC and the other is historically liberal. So let’s add those to the total for the MSM numbers (noting that we don’t have the numbers for evening network news shows like Nightline) and we have FNC at 3,122,000 viewers to MSM at 16,180,000 viewers putting Fox at 16% of the total of those shows for which I could find ratings.

America’s TV system is a capitalist enterprise. There is a lot of competition, a lot of choice, and if the news programs did not feed the people what the people wanted then the people would not watch. Therefore, according to Fox, which is obviously conservative, the general populace has not asked enough for conservative programming to make conservative news a worthwhile venture so the most conservative consumers have to settle for “Balanced” programming. And even that only makes up less than 16% of the population of America.

This is according to Fox’s own logic. But also, it seems to them that because they have a large audience for cable news that they are obviously right. Note the absurd epigram by Bill O’Reilly, where he argues that because so many people watch his show he must be right. On the other hand, because Al Franken sells a lot of books critical of Bill O’Reilly doesn’t make Franken right as well, but is an unfortunate consequence of the free market.

And of all the stupid claims one can try to pass on an audience, the one that claims that popularity-makes-right competes for the top and is so self-defeating I wonder why I’m even mentioning it. If popularity-makes-right were true then The National Enquirer is a more reliable weekly than The Economist. Also, Two and a Half Men is more reliable than 60 Minutes. It is self-defeating because Barack Obama won more votes than the Republican that Fox endorsed and the Democrats have more votes in Congress than the Republicans. The Democrats are more popular according to the election, so why bother arguing against them? Because they have more followers they are obviously right, right? Well, only according to Bill O’Relly.

Well, whether the Democrats are right about the costs of health care or national security or taxes or energy is beside the point in the end since their popularity is merely indicative of their existing in a liberal country.

 

 
Healthy Business or Healthish Business
 
 “Only four players assessed using the body-mass index (BMI) by The Associated Press made it all the way to the ‘obese’ range, most notably — you guessed it — Miami Heat star Shaquille O’Neal… ‘I’ve read that same formula, but as an athlete, I’m classified as phenomenal,’ O’Neal told The AP. ‘You can look it up.’”
    --from an AP article, March 9, 2005
 
Apparently one of the reasons people support the second amendment so vehemently, especially in the cases of assault rifles and concealable weapons, is because the “slightest curb on their right to bear arms will make America vulnerable to tyranny.”[1] Of course, most of those who feel this strongly about gun rights vote Republican. One of the GOP’s main platforms, as gun-totin’ Sarah Palin will no doubt remind you, is a strong national defense, which means lots of ammunition and manpower with which the federal government can more efficiently and effectively enforce their tyrannical ways. That is, if they didn’t also let you carry around that 9mm.
Another platform for the GOP is limited government interference in the economic sector. They argue that the more the government interferes in business, through regulation or taxes, the less efficient business becomes. That raises prices and makes for poorer quality products. This seems to me to interfere directly with another of the party’s new platforms, which is immigration reform or often anti-immigration. The Republicans pushed through the brilliant idea of a $50 billion border fence that is paid for through taxes and is very visible evidence of regulation. Oh, and it also interferes with another of their platforms, being to promote individual liberty, especially in the style of private property. The government had to take over private land near the Mexican border in order to impose the ugly fence. This is nothing new, it turns out, in the, in practice, aristocracy that is the GOP (see here).
These apparent contradictions in policy have now been married in a wedding of absurdity in the current health-care debate. People are showing up armed at Democratic town halls to scare the bejeezus out of lawmakers who want to offer the same health care it provides to its military or elderly. One of their complaints (and this is from the more reasonable opponents) is that government regulation will create inefficiencies and take away autonomy. After all, health care is a privilege, not a right (though they don’t say what we should do with sick people without insurance; I guess they wouldn’t mind people dying in the streets). Some of this seems reasonable enough, except that the current health system is relatively unregulated. Yet health care in America is twice as expensive as it is in more regulated countries, no more effective (unless, perhaps, if you have cancer), and in my experience, allows for less freedom of choice than the other two countries I’ve lived—countries routinely crapped upon by the anti-reform group.
The most common proposal for reform from those who don’t want government interference is tort reform to lower malpractice lawsuits. This should lower the costs of health care. What they don’t mention is that this would require government interference, hinder the autonomy of patients, and not promote personal responsibility among medical practitioners (personal responsibility being another bugbear for conservatives [that is as long as the doctors aren’t getting gay married, otherwise they might be held responsible]). Of course, this also ignores evidence that suggests that less than 3% of health costs go to malpractice cases and insurance (I asked a lawyer friend of mine, who defends doctors in malpractice cases what he thought of the linked article and he agreed with the estimates).
Why all of these contradictions? Why does the free market seem to fail in this case? I’m hardly the one to answer this question, but I have a theory. It is because health care shouldn’t qualify as a business. It’s a little like using the BMI to measure the health of Shaquille O’Neal. It’s a special case that doesn’t apply.
My rationale: A normal business is considered healthy when it generates growth, which can be done in mainly two ways. The first is new customers and the second is loyal customers. But really you need new customers if you want to succeed. A human being, though, is considered healthy if they do not experience the need to visit a doctor. So a doctor or a pharmaceutical company needs sick people to treat in order to make their businesses healthy. Apparently 65% of Americans are on some sort of prescription drug, which, on the face of it, suggests that America is a very sick country. But it also suggests that Big Pharma is very healthy (and doctors are likely making a good living, too).
In the world of libertarian economic policy, this should lead to cheaper, better, and more efficient products. When demand is high and there is lots of competition, innovation and the need to drum up business lead to lower costs. This is why the price of a DVD player is so low now compared to what it cost when they were first introduced. It’s why prototypes of hydrogen fuel cell cars can cost around $1million and yet still might be worth producing because the cost will go down with higher demand. But health care doesn’t work the same way.
Health insurance companies add a bit of complexity to the mix as well since they are healthier with new customers who don’t get sick (or sick enough that they feel they need to pay, or so sick that insurance companies can determine they were delusional about their health so they don’t have to pay, but always sick enough that they feel they need health insurance). In the end, it’s a lot messier than the auto industry, or a coffee shop, or most other businesses. For instance, we shouldn’t want to take drugs or go to the doctor. I buy a DVD player because I want to watch movies. I buy a hydrogen fuel cell car because I need to get from point A to point B, but I don’t want to hurt the environment doing so. But if I can prevent myself from having to go to the doctor and her prescribing me medicine, that’s a good thing for me, but not really good for anyone else trying to make a profit except the insurance companies.
My guess as to why medical treatment in the US is so much more expensive than that in other countries, despite America’s closer adherence to libertarian principles, is that the libertarian principles don’t apply. But this flies in the face of people who blindly support free market economics because they seem to think that these principles apply to everything even when they don’t really hold to them themselves. For instance, the GOP is now a huge supporter of Medicare despite it being a government program. But also, I’ve noticed that among my Facebook friends, the ones who have posted articles opposing reform in the name of free market principles were educated in public schools and graduated from state universities. Will they send their kids to schools that are not tax supported? I don’t think so since they moved to suburban areas for the good public schools.
Of course there are conservatives who oppose paying taxes for things like public education (and I’m told some even oppose taxes to pay for roads). The majority, though, see the benefits of the public education option because the alternative is so unpalatable. Apparently this quasi-socialist practice has a proper line and that line is at health care.
There are other special industries that don’t apply to normal business theory. Police protection is something that we need, but hope not to actually use. Also, it would seem crazy for the police not to respond to a burglary or assault because the person calling 911 doesn’t have the money to pay for it. It seems crazy, say, to run an army for profit. Howard Hughes, you might remember from The Aviator, had to testify to congress under possible war profiteering charges. We would be shocked if someone were to build a private prison since their profits would necessitate customers—something we are surely trying to avoid, not encourage.
Of course, these above examples shows how powerful the “government should get out of the business of business” argument is. The police not responding quickly in poor neighborhoods aside, private for profit armies and private prisons are actual intended practices warranted by the government and they have been depressingly successful, just like the “business” of health care—that is if you only judge success by profits.

[1] http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258768

 
Turning down the President: Obama's Speech, Education, and the Health Care Scandal
 
 
Hindsight is always 20/20. 
 
I teach secondary education in Colorado, one of the swing states of our nation. To avoid political controversy, our school decided to decline President Obama's invitation on September 8th to speak to our students. This decision was made when the media was playing all of its cards of hype, when interviews on both sides of the debate relied on rumor and speculation. As we know now, the president stirred the political pot by some outrageous admonitions: he encouraged students not to drop out, and he inspired students to use their education to contribute to our country. Did we really think he would use the opportunity to indoctrinate kindergarteners on health care reform? Come on America! What I find frightening is what our actions have taught our students.
 
We have taught students that it is ok to base decisions upon rumor & speculation;
 
...that name calling is an appropriate means to voice dissent;
 
...that schools are no place for debate, disagreement, and controversy;
 
...that politics must be kept at arms distance; 
 
...and that silence is better than discussion. 
 
How are students going to learn the crucial skills of analysis and argument if we adults fail to model such skills when discussing politics? 
 
Let's say that President Obama did discuss health care reform with students. Let's say that he did ask students what they can do to help him accomplish his plan. Wow. What a great opportunity to explore how the voice of dissent is crucial in such a process--how people who genuinely disagree, based upon principles rather than on whims, can positively contribute to the process. 
 
There aren't too many days when I feel ashamed. Today, though, is one of those days. I am ashamed that our school failed to embrace the opportunity, the discussions, and the debates. I am ashamed that I did not advocate for allowing students to listen to the president. I am ashamed that this controversy sends a powerful statement to students, that politics must be compartmentalized from education.   
 
If we continue to model political debate with infantile rhetoric and jejune remarks, we have no hope in educating students to become citizens who base argument upon principles. 

 
Obama: Too Cool for School
 
           This was originally intended to be an essay on the absurdity of America’s recent classroom scandal. The fact that the president has been banned from public schools across the country with his sinister message of “staying in school” and “working hard” is almost too absurd to dignify. After all, we would much rather hear these slogans from recently paroled professional athletes. I have never once heard uproar over former wife-abusers or cocaine addicts speaking to schools. As long as you’re famous, and the judge sentences you to do it, we are happy to have you instruct our children. But to have the President of the United States address our kids is just too much to handle.
            I had meant to wax on about what kind of message this sends to our children… and then it hit me. This was the best thing that could have possibly happened for Obama’s reelection campaign. Thanks to (what passes for) the conservative media, Obama actually became forbidden fruit this past week.
            Millions of fifteen year olds around the country were told that Obama is a bad influence. Translated into adolescentese: Obama is a dick magnet with serious manther tendencies. When was the last time that one man got to be both the most powerful dude on the planet and a subversive shit-disturber? He might as well have a leather jacket and a tattoo that says “FUCK THE POLICE!”
            Now, anyone who knows a fifteen year old knows that in first period, all of them were indignant that they were being treated like infants. In second period they all vowed to find the censored speech on youtube after school. In third period, zits, gossip, and boners usurped every spare brain cell and hormone. By the end of the day, very few remembered how they felt in first period. All the better for Obama because the mystique of forbidden fruit is always more attractive than the tasting.
            When it comes time to vote in 2012, a vague idea of Obama’s historic coolness will win the day. Indeed, all those kids who didn’t get to jump onto the bandwagon the first time round will get their chance.
Really, we ought to have a scandal like this once a month. Obama should video-link himself to driver’s training classes extolling the virtues of seatbelts. Obama should host a Nickelodeon Sponge Bob marathon and remind kids to obey their parents between cartoons. Every time that one of these events is banned, his coolness will skyrocket.

 

Editor's Note:  The following is another submission by El Conquistador.  As with his first article, I have opted to leave it as is - in his original voice.  It's still unclear if he is attempting to be humorous.  SA

If I Was the King of the Forest

by El Conquistador

 Once I turned 40, I started to think about the fact that I had already turned 35.  You see, in America, 35 is the age when you are allowed to be President so I had already wasted 5 years not being President.  These 5 years could have been significant to history so I was left feeling guilty for the work I hadn’t done. 

 I kinda like Obama so I won’t run against him in 2012 but the world is supposed to end when that year is over so if I beat him I won’t ever actually get sworn in (because the inauguration is in January and that is after the end of the year before).  In that case, maybe I will run, then if I win, Obama will be the last President ever in office but I would be the last President elected.  That is sort of like when a batter in baseball strikes out but the ball gets away from the catcher and he gets to run to first base anyway. 

 When I run for President, I will have a solid campaign and it will be honest and I won’t take to any of that smear and mud flinging.  In fact, I will be so honest that it will be frightening and refreshing.  This is what the American people want, so I am going to be the one to give it to them.

 Here is my platform:

 Change the Flag.  Our flag is too busy.  Stars AND stripes?  Too much.  I think we don’t make Puerto Rico a state because that extra star will throw everything off.  It is time we stop letting our love of a flag stop us from getting more states.  We need something that shows that we love our country and that the American way is the best way.  We should learn from sports franchises in the mid-90’s and replace red, white, and blue with black, teal, and purple.  Purple to represent our royal roots, black because we are hardcore, and teal because of jewelry from New Mexico.  I’d like to see a throwback to the old “Don’t Tread on Me” flag and bring in a bald eagle.  Something like this:

 

 Change the National Anthem.  Hello, it isn’t 1492 anymore.  It’s time to take a song that is fresher and replace the Star Spangled Banner (we would have to if we change the flag because the new one is star spangling free).  I don’t even think we need to write a new song, just insert something classic and popular like Free Bird.  It would be perfect because the new flag has a bird on it and we are free.  It would change sporting events, because instead of having someone who is a great singer to hit the high note on the word free, you would need a great guitarist who could nail the solo.  Plus the song kicks ass and it would make the South happy which would be healing since they are still ticked about losing slavery.

 End hunger.  We could take the entire state of Montana and turn it into a great big garden where hungry people could go and camp.  This would help us make use of a place that is currently only used for hermits to build cabins and write manifestos.  Plus the homeless wouldn’t crowd our streets and bother the prostitutes.

 Do something with Montana.  See above.

 Revoke the right for women to vote.  This wouldn’t get me a lot of votes from women, but if I’m elected, it won’t matter next time anyway.  I like the ladies, don’t get me wrong, but they are more emotional than men and my girlfriend always loses her keys.  Seriously, if you can’t keep track of your keys then you shouldn’t have to try and decide on political issues.  You apparently already have too much on your plate.

 Invent longer lasting milk.  I’d put our top scientists on this asap.  I don’t know how they’ll do it, but my guess is that they will figure it out.

 Do away with the space program.  Billions of dollars go to pay for missions to places too far away to matter.  We could use that money for better things like schools, roads, and milk science.

 As you can see, I have put a lot of thought into this, and these are just the tip of the iceberg.  If only the Mayans didn’t have to end the world, I’d have a chance to make the Earth a better place to live.  And this bird you cannot change.

 
Bittersweet Injection
 
“The good old days weren’t always good and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems.”
-         William Joel (Keeping the Faith)
 
There is a stain on the sport of baseball. This stain has a name: Steroids. Records are being broken by asterisk deserving ne’er do wells and the Holy of Holies that is the Hall of Fame is considering shutting them out. It is difficult for baseball fans to hold onto hope for America’s pastime. I say, “buck up friends” this too shall pass, but in the meantime enjoy the resurgence of national interest in the once great game. Baseball is resilient; it has done everything possible to destroy itself, but it won’t die. The so called purists would insist that the latest issue of steroids has tainted the entire modern era, when they should actually be thankful. For baseball to have relevance in society –relevance beyond fancifully romantic notions of sanctity – then it needs controversy and steroids are the balm that soothes the aching growing disinterest from the general populace. Without steroids, baseball would be doomed.
 
Say what you will about unfair advantage and the heinousness of tarnishing the record books, but the fact is that performance enhancing drugs is just what the shady doctor ordered. When McGwire and Sosa were chasing Maris, the spotlight shone brightly and the entire world was captivated. When the Surliest Man Alive, Barry Bonds, broke Big Mac’s record, both haters and apologists tuned in. As helpful as these events were to distance the game from the debacle of a strike shortened season, the homeruns just simply wouldn’t have been enough to sustain a revival. Once the flash bulbs faded, most casual fans would have wandered back to the NFL and the ever rising NBA for the sports fix and cult of personality obsession. Baseball is not, on the surface, exciting enough to capture the attention of the Millenials. But an unlikely hero emerged from the dungheap to save the day. 
 
Enter Jose Canseco.
 
Relegated a reality show reject and all around scoundrel, he blew the lid off the steroid secret and, despite mixed metaphors and grammatical silliness, he exposed the game’s greats as a bunch of cheats and cast a heavy shadow of doubt over the major achievements of every player in recent history. And thus far, he is been pretty accurate with his accusations.
 
Suddenly, the sport is front page news and people are reopening the debates over the greatest of all time. God bless steroids for bringing the sport back. The legends of the game are being revered now more than ever. Even Pete Rose has a chance for reinstatement because the steroids thing has made his gambling indiscretions innocuous by comparison. The beauty is that steroids are not a passing fancy. This discussion will linger all the way through the time when the current crop of offenders are eligible for the Hall of Fame, so this issue can keep baseball interesting for another decade or two. And please spare me the “what about the message this sends to the kids” argument. As a society we’ve been telling our children that they need to do whatever it takes to be more beautiful, stronger, thinner, sexier – whatever is deemed culturally excellent – for years. Steroids are just another way to achieve a warped sense of self worth. Should we warn them against the dangers? Absolutely, but we should have been helping maintain their integrity and sense of self worth long before Ken Caminiti died.
 
But I did not come here to bury baseball, I came here to celebrate it. 
 
I know that last line sounds corny, but that’s the thing about baseball, people can’t help but fall into the trap of dramatic romanticizing when discussing something so seemingly banal like the suicide squeeze. Look no further than the classic baseball movies: Field of Dreams, A League of their Own, and The Natural with its overwhelming syrupy, cliché ridden, predictably formulaic themes oozing through every pour on Redford’s leathery face. But you still watch. You still talk about how great they are, because there is something about baseball that defies conventional cynicism and says that for these three hours, the rest of the world and all its problems are on hold. Listen to me, I’m talking about grown men, millionaires in most cases (as far as the major leagues are concerned) who hit and throw a little white ball around for a living and we get all sentimental as if speaking at a wake for a beloved uncle. 
 
Back to the notion of the “sanctity of the game.” It is a contradiction in terms. A game is supposed to be fun and ultimately a distraction from the everyday mundanity and stress. To assume a sense holiness is to miss the point entirely. Fallacious piety is also an amusing tradition, and while it ought not to be discounted, it should be looked at objectively. Baseball is baseball, a wonderfully complex yet simple sport that brings people together as well as provide cause for cursing at our radio, buying tickets from scalpers, and paying nine dollars for a cup of Bud Light. We cheer a guy who helps us win the pennant and then boo him viciously when he returns in a different uniform. We high five the guy sitting next to us when our team comes back in extra innings, then we flip the same person off in the parking lot if they attempt to merge in front of us.
 
Sanctimonious fans fail to see that their sport is rife with contradictions and acceptable nonsense. A few more examples:
 
  • An owner of one of the teams was allowed to be the (impartial) commissioner of baseball. 
  • Grown men who can hit a ball traveling at 90+ miles an hour with a wooden bat cannot punch a pitcher in the face even if he is less than 12 inches away. 
  • In Philadelphia it is considered justifiable homicide to kill a man who claims that Mike Schmidt is not the best third baseman of all time. In fact you can go to jail for not assaulting said heretic. 
Is their corruption? Absolutely. Do the players cheat? No question. Is ballpark food outrageously overpriced? Without a doubt. That is part of what makes it so great. Follow me here, I know it sounds a little peculiar, but these are a few of the nuances that make baseball fascinating. The game is what it is but the maddening irritations in the periphery such as performance enhancing drugs are just as important to the game as rain delays. Baseball does not exist in a vacuum and the game with its rules form an unwavering foundation despite the fact that it resides within an ever changing culture. The frustrating idiosyncrasies that seem to threaten the sanctity of the game are the very things that keep baseball the game pure by juxtaposition. 
 
The times they are a changing, but baseball the game is still the same. While technological advancements change the way advertising is displayed and fashion and marketing fads dictate what the new team colors will be, it still takes three outs to get out of an inning. Greed is prevalent through all aspects of the sport, but that’s because there are real humans involved, yet there are still rules and constants that go on amidst the backdrop of the real life soap opera. When those rules are challenged, our very morality is at stake, and nothing beats a little threatening doubt to increase interest. I submit to you that baseball void of controversy, ceases to deserve to be considered our national sport. Controversy is as much a part of baseball’s tradition as it is a part of America’s. Baseball leans on history more than any other sport and the history of mankind is a tapestry woven together with sin and misconduct.
 
Our nation was founded on three great but terribly flawed traditions: Capitalism, Christianity, and Baseball. Steroids were just the shot in the ass that baseball needed to maintain its rightful place as our national pastime.
 
Dr. O'Lorin has offered this response to this essay:
 
I just threw up in my mouth. Perhaps not because Mr. Ausburne is off base, or out in left field, but because he hits too close to home. I wonder if there is something to the Hegelian notion that thesis and antithesis converge to propel history forward. Perhaps we needed a bit of yang to keep our yin relevent...
 
No, I'm pretty sure that I threw up in my mouth because Ausburne is full of shit.
 
Look no further to the passing reference to Pete Rose. He, the all time hits leader, is banned from baseball for gambling away his integrity. Year after year, there is talk of his reinstatement. And year after year, he is denied. This is so because Pete Rose stands as a warning against tainting the game. I admit, this is just an illusion, but ritual needs a few well-placed illusions to remain intelligle. Baseball needs Pete Rose, but it needs him to be a head on a stick outside the city wall, not the venerated knight on the dark horse.
 
Mr. Ausburne rejoins:
 
Mr. O'Lorin, the purist that he is, needs my words to ring hollow.  If I speak any truth, then his fantasy world will implode and all he will be left with is shattered memories and wasted happiness.  CC needs to accept that Baseball and steroids go together like peas and genetically modified carrots. 
 
His sermonic ramblings about Pete Rose only further prove my earlier point - Rose has stood as an ineffectual warning and himself has become a sideshow, which has been great for baseball and Rose himself.  If the sport were serious about regaining some level of holiness then it would do right now what it did to Rose: ban all players who tested positive for steroids.  It won't though, because banning one guy to "send a message" is much more convenient than admitting what everyone already accepts and that is that baseball and all its records have been tainted for decades.  But baseball, like Mr. O'Lorin, feels the need to continue to operate as if the emperor is fully clothed.
 

 
The Two Faces of Colonialism, Part Three: Feminist in Africa
 
            Just to clarify, I’m not much of a feminist. I used to think I was, but that was before I learned what it really means to be a feminist. I’m for equal rights, pay, and time in the pulpit. I’m against exploitation, patronization, and poor taste. But in today’s academia, this does not a feminist make. Actually, by the academy’s standards, most professional women I know are not feminists either. Perhaps that is a topic for another time. What is important at present is the simple fact that I am against rape.
            Yes, I know, this quite a shocking revelation from a liberal, wannabe pacifist. But this is the internet, is it not? How am I to gain a readership if I don’t disturb the proverbial shit a little. So, here I am, out of the closet: I am anti-rape. It feels so liberating to finally confess this.
            With that premise in place, I invite you to journey back with me almost two decades to early 1990’s Zimbabwe. This was back when the exchange rate was 10:1 and not 100,000:1 and folks didn’t wait in a six hour queue for a loaf of bread. This was back when Mugabe was just a quirky son of a bitch with a bit of an ego problem—or so we thought. Back then, I worked in a bush-hospital as a lab technician, ambulance driver, and general anesthesiologist. (By anesthesiologist, I mean that I was the guy who pinned your arms or legs to the table while they cut you open. I would feel sorry for you as you whimpered, but mostly I would try not to think about how badly your insides smelled.)
            I was all of seventeen. My morality was still in its infancy but I was ready to take a firm stance on a few issues, like rape. Being seventeen, I did quite a bit of silent observation. I wanted to learn from this culture to expand my own horizons. (I actually remember thinking the phrase “expand my own horizons.” Hey, I was seventeen.) I worked at a medical mission, but I had no intention of bringing western salvation to the Dark Continent. I was mature enough to know that my own moral stances would not necessarily translate in that context.
            I was in the lab one day with a male nurse named “Second.” Second is quite a common name among second-born children in Zimbabwe. Second’s younger brother was named “Last.” His youngest brother was also named “Last.” As you might have already guessed, Last is an even more common name than Second.
            Second was procrastinating while I dropped blood samples into a centrifuge. He gleefully told me about a sex seminar he had attended the night before. He raised his eyebrows and informed me that the seminar was led by a woman. This detail was followed by a beaming, toothy-white grin. “She told us to enter from the backside when our woman is pregnant!” Apparently, the idea of doggie-style was hilarious to my African friend. “That woman was funny!”
            I smiled genuinely. They say humor is the last thing you learn when adapting to a new culture. I had only been there a few months and was still a hopeless failure when it came to the Sunday comics. However, this bit of humor was universal: two guys talking about bedroom antics. I’ll admit that I welcomed the topic—it had been awhile since I’d felt at home. What was truly funny was the look on his face. Obviously this woman had scandalized him.
            He continued, “That woman was funny! She said that she let her husband go into her anus!” I was seeing for the first time just how much Livingstone influenced had these people. The missionary position had taken hold like buttoned trousers and Coca-Cola.
            I asked a stupid question, “Did your wife attend this seminar with you?”
            He laughed at the mere possibility. “No, just men were invited,” his grin waned. Then he instructed me, “Women don’t need to know as much when they marry… they don’t want to know.”
            And then the conversation shifted inexplicably. I’m not sure if Second was changing the subject or if he wanted to illustrate a point that I missed.
            He said, “Sometimes a woman will say ‘no, no, no’ but she really wants it.”
            Let the colonialism begin.
            I had tried, until this point, to keep my Western biases to myself. But I had seen enough after-school specials and Mormon-sponsored commercials to know when honesty and courage were at stake, “When a woman says ‘no,’ she means ‘no’.”
            He waved me off; explained himself; enacted the scenario in falsetto.
            I held my ground firmly, “No Second, when a woman says ‘no,’ she means ‘no’.”
            I imagined that the fate of some poor African woman (or many) was in my hands. If I didn’t teach Second some capital T-Truth, I would be responsible for his eventual victims. Maybe I was here to save Africa from itself. Did I mention that I was seventeen?
            Colonialism is an ironic thing. There is perhaps nothing so damaging that begins with such virtuous intentions. It’s easy with hindsight to condemn those puritanical missionaries who forced European dress onto native Hawaiians. But were those dullards much different than me? They honestly believed they were acting in the best interests of the people and culture they had come to love. Although it is passé to say it, Westernization has improved the quality of life for many people. Take building codes along earthquake-prone fault lines, for example. Yet for every life saved by a white building inspector, millions are killed by bullets, or smallpox, or vodka, or displacement by a new border.
            In retrospect, I don’t think I’d respond much differently to Second. Rape is one of those things, methinks, that is evil no matter where you live. Forgive me for writing this—forgive me for even thinking this—but Western feminism is an example of what makes America more enlightened than Africa. I am well aware that I was imposing my worldview onto his. I was judging his worldview as archaic and barbaric. I was, in that moment, superior. ...In part four of this series, I plan to back-peddle like a circus clown.
 
My Response: Nowhere in Africa
 
 
            I was chatting with a lecturer in the German department at my current university recently and the subject of German film came up. I mentioned that I had really liked some of the movies I’d seen out of Germany, specifically the Oscar winning Nirgenwo in Afrika. My conversation partner said, “Didn’t you think it was colonial?” Perhaps, I said, but doesn’t it also seem to subvert colonialism since the subject is a Jewish family escaping Nazi Germany to farm in Kenya, only to be rounded up by the English as enemy aliens? So, yes, it is colonial, but it also is critical of the colonialism. I bring this up because colonialism always seems so complicated to me, as does feminism. When people talk about being feminists, I need to hear much more than that to know what they’re talking about. I’m not sure I even understand what O’Lorin meant in the opening to his essay.
            But then, I also don’t understand why I was asked to respond to an essay about conflicts between post-colonialism and feminism. I’m a white American male. The gist of the essay was about whether a white American male could speak up for African females and against the feelings of an African male. By asking me, of all people, what I think of southern African male attitudes regarding whether “no means no,” aren’t we perpetuating the problem? But for what it’s worth, I think it’s absolutely wrong to rape women, no matter how complicated feminism and colonialism are to understand.

 
 

A Moderate Conservative Approach to Pro-Life, Part Three:
We Need Some Strategery

 

by Kermit Pitsfield

 

In my first essay, I suggested that the Bush years lulled pro-lifers to sleep, distracting us with pre-emptive war and Supreme Court mythology. Unfortunately, I forget what my second essay was about, but I’m pretty sure it had something to do reducing the asshole quotient among us. In what follows, I suggest how the court of public opinion can be influenced. I do so with unabashed motive to lobby for more stringent legislation for the preservation of unborn life.

There are those among us—a great many in fact—that simply don’t care if we pro-lifers are liked or respected in liberal circles. Many believe that we will never be liked or respected; this is the ‘so why bother?’ argument. Still more believe that Truth is the only ally needed in a debate, and that the general public can go to hell; this is the ‘no spin zone’ argument. As long as these arguments bookend our approach, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.

As long as pro-lifers refuse to coax the moderate majority, no headway will be made for the rights of the unborn. If we really believe that the status quo is a miscarriage of justice for the voiceless among us, we ought to be investing in a multifaceted campaign that targets the moderate undecided among us. Demonizing our counterparts serves no purpose whatsoever. It simply makes us look demonic.

Allow me to assuage the fears of the ‘why bother?’ crowd. It can be done. Just take a look at how the winners win. Consider the environmental lobby. Ten years ago, the face of that movement was a caricature of a pot-smoking, sitar-listening, bearded vegan. Middle America simply could not see the truth of the matter past the image of that caricature. Not so in today’s political landscape. While the caricature still exists, it no longer represents the face of the movement. Take a moment to view this advertisement.

 

In many ways, this ad exploits clichés and appeals to the uncritically minded. But if the shoe fits… I.e. the makers of this ad know us conservatives well. Most of us eat up clichés like Idaho freedom fries. Notice that nowhere in this add is the word ‘environment’ uttered. Rather, the phrase ‘God’s green Earth’ is employed. The connotative value strikes just the right balance between religious right and down home charm. Notice also the way the spokesman refers to ‘the boys in Tehran’. Our grandpa-typed actor aptly unifies America by casting the oil-mongers in Iran as the other. Notice the way he says Tehran in perfect Midwestern intonation.

The pro-life lobby (if one exists… maybe they’ve been on vacation or contracted laryngitis for the past decade) should be fired. The face of our movement is still the conservative equivalent of the afore mentioned pot-smoking vegan. For us it is the frumpy, church-going, sign-waving spitter (who may or may not be packing heat).

We need a new face. We need an elitist panel of professors and MDs on PBS. We need a deeply conflicted pregnant feminist on Oprah. We need a gay, vegan, celebrity straight out of drug rehab on Stephen Colbert. We need a Doris Kearns Goodwin look-alike defending a moderately conservative approach against an Al Gore look-alike on MSNBC. The debate should border on dull, while both parties smile their ways toward the middle. We need a full decade of slow marching toward Kum Ba Yah and flower smelling.

Nothing is set in stone. The left coast elected Arnold. Iowa legalized gay marriage. Virginia elected a liberal, mulatto-skinned, Harvard man. With just a little bit of common sense and smattering of media savvy, the tide can turn.

 

 

Between Batteries and Vroom: The Two Faces of Colonialism, Part Two

by C.C. Olorin

 

If every digital device was removed from the Earth, we would survive—but we would lose most of our daily conversation.  If you’re like me, most of your interactions happen with the help of zeros, ones, and satellites.  It is quite rare that I pass time with loved ones without the benefit of batteries or lit screens. But the rare occurrence took place last week.

I was babysitting my three-year-old nephew at my parents’ house.  It was the same house that I grew up in.  It was the house that my nephew’s mother grew up in (coincidentally, my nephew’s mother happens to be my sister).  And he was rummaging through the same toy box I rummaged through 30 or so years ago. It’s the kind of toy box that hasn’t been filtered in 30 years. A matchbox car; a single Lincoln Log; a handful of Legos; a Barbie head; a naked Barbie body (but much too small to match the Barbie head); a Strawberry Shortcake complete with 20 year-old strawberry smelling breath; blocks; a Rubik’s Cube with the stickers missing.

My nephew shoveled each artifact over his shoulder looking for something remotely resembling a toy. Slim pickings. He was going to need some help sorting through this graveyard of velveteen prosthetics.

Aha! A wooden block car! It had all four wheels. The axles were straight. What toy could be more universally functional for a boy under four? I present the diamond in the rough to my young excavator, “Here you go, Finn—let’s play cars.”

            He looked at the car and then at me, “What it do?”

            A moment of generational alienation blew down from the attic. What it do? For a spell I was the proto-human at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odessy throwing a femur bone into space. What it do? I push the car under my palm and do my most instinctive vroom. He looked at me like I was an Italian game show.

            That was when I realized how utterly helpless our society is without batteries. I’m really no different than my nephew. What with my cell phone and my radio and my two gmail accounts and my iPod. If my batteries die, I will simply cease to communicate. If you don’t have facebook, we might never become friends. If my spell check malfunctions (I often confuse it when I’m quoting German or British English), I will have no way of knowing whether it’s enrolment or enrollment.

            As I reflect on my dependence on batteries, my nephew unearths a Speak and Spell. Oh the joy of Speak and Spell. It was our first attempt at spell check. In a time when computers were the size of refrigerators, Speak and Spell was far ahead of its time. This one just had one defect: no batteries. I flip it over. Six D batteries! For that much juice I better be getting Max Headroom. …but he seems interested so I steal six D batteries from a Maglite and an electric lantern.  Power on and I hear that familiar Stephen Hawking voice in condescending monotones.

[Excursus: Would someone please tell me, if Stephen Hawking is a genius, why can’t he come up with a voice modulator that sounds human?  Why does one of the brightest men on the planet sound exactly like a Speak and Spell? We can transmit a voice to outer space and back in a second but we can’t get Stephen Hawking a decent voice?]  

My nephew and I have something in common with Stephen Hawking.  None of us can adequately express ourselves with the help of batteries.

I’d like to think of myself as pretty kid friendly.  I know well that Speak and Spells were not built with three year olds in mind.  But, you see, there are buttons. These buttons create sounds. Buttons and sounds are things that three year olds dig. Generally, however, these kinds of toys require less imagination. But I was running out of imagination myself.

Well I tried. My nephew and I lasted about seven minutes without batteries. I know that it was seven minutes because my sister left at 6:03 and I considered stealing the batteries from clock that read 6:10.

The problem of colonialism is that we do it so well. Whether it be handguns or Hollywood, we Westerners are out to assimilate you. Why is this? Why must we? I think it begins at three years. This is the age when we assimilate ourselves. All it takes is batteries.

 

A Moderate Conservative Approach to Pro-Life, Part Two:

It is Time that we Evolve

by Kermit Pitsfield

 In my first essay of this series I noted that there hadn’t been a clinic bombing in a few years.  Of course, I mused, even one is 100% too many, but I—well—I guess I mentioned this to illustrate how horribly inept pro-lifers have been with winning in the court of public opinion. Horribly inept?  No, just plain horrible.  If you looked at five minutes of news this week, you’ll be aware of our latest tragedy.  I use the first person plural, “our,” not to refer to us pro-lifers, but to us as humans.  I honestly cannot relate to a man who would murder a doctor to make a point.  That said point was motivated by a “pro-life” agenda is a painful non sequitur.

            I had hoped to use this space to suggest some initial steps toward a new way forward for pro-lifers.  However, in light of recent events, I’d like to take this opportunity to discuss just one step, indeed, the most difficult step.  Let’s start with our most recent example of horrible.

            In my estimation, it serves no purpose to demonize sick people and I must assume that our recent murderer (I choose not to publicize his name) is sick.  I’m not claiming that he was clinically insane; I have no insight concerning his psychological makeup.  But I have to believe that it takes a deep and pervasive illness to enact premeditated murder. It’s my belief that if we ever have a chance of evolving toward peace, it will require a willingness to understand the monsters among us and thus humanize them.

            I believe that this ethic needs to run both ways.  Pro-lifers would do well to try to understand the pro-choice platform.  This is so for two reasons.  First, we have no hope of swaying public opinion until we begin to soften our voices and listen.  Second, it is almost impossible to win a contest when your opponent is unknown to you.

            In order to move toward an ethic of humanization, pro-lifers must understand that our counterparts simply do not believe that what they support is murder.  We might know this with our heads but this fundamental difference has been slow to sink in.  Please suffer an appeal from the devil’s advocate.

            In America, millions of miscarriages happen daily.  The vast majority of these happen unbeknownst to the women who miscarry.  Imagine: a day old zygote fails to latch on the uterus and washes away with menstruation.  Nobody mourns.  I have heard the argument that there ought to be much more mourning.  But I have heard no one suggest that there ought to be a million more gravestones per day to commemorate dead zygotes.

            With this in mind, I think we need to move away from the absoluteness of our stance that life begins at conception.  Mind you, I do not suggest that we abandon this stance; I merely suggest that we do not hold it so absolutely.  The truth is that the beginning of life is mysterious and so we pro-lifers should choose to handle the issue with caution.

            Conversely, I think we pro-lifers need to choose our topics of debate more wisely. Rather than hinging our arguments on the beginning of life, we ought to be moving the discussion to the moment of birth.  This is an argument I think we can win.  Most will agree that there is little difference between decapitating a day old baby and decapitating a baby one day before birth.  The idea is repugnant whether or not the mother is the one choosing the decapitation.

            What I hope to show here is that neither side benefits from an absolute stance.  As we move forward, we need to move past absolutes and embrace nuances.  As long as pro-lifers are associated with extreme activism, the general public will see no reason to change the status quo.

            For the life of me, I cannot understand how this issue became partisan. Progressives are known as champions for the rights of those who cannot defend themselves.  So why not take a different tact?  After all, there is no other people group so defenseless as the unborn.  But before we appeal to liberal sensibilities, we must decide to appeal.  Appealing is different than demanding; it is different than accusing.  If we change the tone of the conversation, we change the conversation entirely.


 
 
 
‘Beloved Community’ in the Technological Age: Oprah, Obama, and the
Popularization of 21st Century African American Expressive Iconography
 
 
by Kim D. Hester-Williams Ph.D
 
My twelve-year old daughter once asked me when she was younger, “Mommy, do I have soul?” I gently responded by saying that yes, she did indeed have soul. Although she still wasn’t quite sure what it was, she was positive soul was something to possess and to enact. Soul is indeed something, it seems to me, that many people want to embody—to possess and enact.
So…what is “soul?” And why is “soul” so alluring? African American linguistics scholar, Geneva Smitherman, defines soul as “the essence of life: feeling, passion, emotional depth—all of which are believed to be derived from struggle, suffering, and having participated in Black Experience. Having risen above the suffering, the person gains soul.” Smitherman makes an important point: one doesn’t have to be of African descent, necessarily, to have soul. She clearly states that one has to have “participated in Black Experience”—to have suffered and risen above that suffering. That is precisely what qualifies President Barack Obama, both through his mother’s and father’s histories and not simply because of his “skin” color. Yet and still, soul is heavily informed by race. Without race there would be no soul. More to the point, without “the power of blackness” there would be no such thing as soul: no gospel, blues, jazz, rap or hip-hop, no Sojourner Truth or Frederick Douglass, no Langston Hughes, Miles Davis, or Aretha Franklin, no Afro, no fist bump. “Soul” (as distinct from John Leland’s historical description and discussion of Hip) is expression in and against oppression and, as such, it is the central force in African American expressive culture and vernacular practices. And it is partially “soul” that accounts for the iconic and symbolic force of the first black president of the United States.
Yet, does the popularity and embracing of President Barack Obama—and his “soul” force—indeed represent a new “hope” for America and the world? Or are popular images of our President merely distorted to a point where they escape translation and become, as W.J.T. Mitchell argues in Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology, “enigmas, problems to be explained, prison-houses which lock the understanding away from the world.” What is “the larger understanding” that informs and propels African American vernacular and soul, especially now as filtered through President Barack Obama? Is this larger understanding somehow “locked away from the world” and if so, why, and more importantly, how do we unlock it?
Oprah was a crucial factor (although by no means was she the only factor) in successfully promoting the image of Obama as iconic representation of hope—hope derived from “soul.” Unlike her unsuccessful attempts to reach film audiences with her 1998 film adaptation of Toni Morrison’s novel, Beloved, she did succeed in convincing a good number of the populace that Barack Obama represented not only a political sea change but also an opportunity for healing of the individual spirit through soul. A seminal moment in this project came in October of 2006, before Obama fully realized his destiny, when the Oprah Winfrey show featured the Obamas discussing many topics near and dear to her audience. One such topic was a discussion of Obama’s campaign textbook, The Audacity of Hope.  This would become Obama’s mantra and the tagline for what is arguably one of the most famous images of a politician, the “Hope” image designed by artist Shepard Fairey.
One of the contemporary forms of soul—hip-hop—also advanced a black vernacular expression of hope and raised Obama’s iconology to a new level. I’m referring here to the campaign song and video by Will.I.Am, “Yes, We Can” which uses the United Farmworker’s slogan, “Si, se puede” translated to English, along with a multicultural cast of actors and musicians expressing their “hopes” for the future. This media intervention was massively appealing. According to Wikipedia ,“Since the original posting on YouTube [and Dipdive.com on February 2, 2008], the video has been re-posted a number of times by other users and as of February 23, 2008, the video had been watched a combined total of more than 22-million times among all of the postings.”
Another, less known but also popular, video promoting Obama’s campaign was promulgated on the Internet, “We Are One.” The power of both videos relies heavily on black vernacular—on Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Dream” metaphor and, in “We Are One,” on June Jordan’s “We Are The Ones” poem about South African women immersed in political struggle. In the poem, Jordan reminds us that “hope and change” need to be, as Barack Obama himself expressed, audacious. She writes, “sing and sing/
back into the mountains and/
if necessary/
even under the sea:” There is no doubt that the reform we need at this historical juncture must be audacious in bringing about, for instance, health care reform that isn’t driven by the demands of the market, equity in education, an end to homelessness and an end, finally, to economic disparity.
The “audacity” part of hope (Obama’s book could well be re-titled, “the audacity in hope”) is a code of soul. It is a code of community and radical transformation. What is very powerful here is the idea of community—not simply unity. And it is this tug and pull, between hope and change, which remains at the core of black expressive practices and “soul.” Indeed, what will truly save us in these trying times, if we are to be saved, is not just chants of hope and change or one, although historic, election. It will be us continuing to insist on change and on beloved community. “We are the ones,” we continue to wait for.

 
Things are gonna change: A review of the Unofficial Obama Spokesman
 
 
A few days ago I boarded the bus and sat next to a gentleman with a dark blue windbreaker, tan slacks, and a blue mesh-back hat that said “Fisherman.” He was unassuming enough, certainly not as threatening as the drunk man in the back who was punching the seat in front of him.
I soon realized this man was special: he had the power to take me back to a time I wish had never ended: the 2008 Presidential Election.
“Things are really about to change,” the man said. I looked at him and, trying not to focus on his walleyes, replied, “How so?”
He launched into a 20-minute harangue about everything Barack Obama is going to do.
“First,” the man said, “he’s gonna deal with the roads. He’s gonna fix ’em all. And he’s gonna deal with it until he’s done dealing with it.” It was a reasonable start — if slightly redundant and misinformed. But even though he used the word “change” many times, his uneven cadence and short, choppy sentences made it obvious that no one would mistake this crinkled, raspy-voiced man for the smooth, eloquent Obama. Then again, Moses was not a great communicator, and he did okay. Devotion to a subject is better than knowledge of it, and this man’s passion about his subject — though wanting fact and art, captured my interest. He was, I decided, the world’s greatest Unofficial Obama Spokesman.
 
I present you some highlights:
 
“He says he’s not gonna deal with anything else until he says the roads are done. Then he’s gonna deal with the homeless issue. To people that say I’ll rent you an apartment but I’m not gonna rent you an apartment, he’s gonna put an end to that. There shouldn’t be people with no home. And if people are making other people homeless, he’ll tell the Federal to deal with ’em.”
 
This, to me, was a magnificent attempt at metonymy: he managed to take the idea of the government in all its legislative and law enforcement glory and make it sound like a bouncer with two felonies who’s willing and able to end you.
 
He continued, “There’s gonna be a lot of people that he just tells the Federal, take care of ’em. And if they don’t like it, they’ll go to jail.”
 
I had to interject upon this surprising phrase: Aren’t the jails already too full?
 
“He’s gonna let all the people in for pot out. He doesn’t care about the pot. He says it’s not an important issue like making people homeless, and that’s what he wants to deal with. Those people with the marijuana can go free and smoke their pot.”
 
Here the man showed a keen sense of how Obama promised in his town hall debate with John McCain that he must prioritize issues to be effective in making policy.
 
“And for all those people harassing California,” he continued, a grin betraying him, “He’s gonna end that, too. So up here in Washington, he’s gonna say, ‘No more harassing California.’ And if they don’t want to stop, they can go to another country. That’s what people do in other countries, they harass people. Or, he’ll just use the military on ’em.”
 
This, to me, was the climactic moment. Not only did he manage to effect sympathy for the most wasteful state in the Union, but the way he paused after mentioning the military was a devilishly brilliant jab at George W. Bush, whose use of military force is most likely the leading cause of hatred for California.
 
The man went on from there — too long, I believe, since he repeated himself about the roads and unfair apartment leasing. But then, suddenly, with a soft sigh, he gently brought his speech to a close:
 
“Interesting about the marijuana, huh.”
 
I nodded, expecting him to continue on. I looked out the window and spotted three cars within a half-mile sporting Obama’s flashy brand. I began thinking that maybe this man was on to something—maybe he had the issues confused, but still represented the spirit of Obama. I began thinking, first, Barack Obama is gonna deal with important things. Like campaign logos, Entertainment Tonight interviews, and redesigning the White House website. Then, he’ll focus on other things, like once again promising to end pork barrel spending.
 
When my bus stop appeared in the distance, I was both relieved and a bit remorseful to leave the Obama Spokesman behind. But it seemed the walleyed old man knew this was exactly how his performance needed to end. He was asleep. His head leaned against the window like a forgotten old Mission Accomplished banner in a dark, cluttered basement.
 
It was a performance not to be missed… and not only because there were no other empty seats on the bus. The man’s ability to captivate his audience was obvious. And his words echoed through my mind like Obama’s voice rings through Capitol Hill: Change, change, change, change… change!
 
As I exited the bus I realized this was the first conversation I’ve had about Obama’s policies since the Inauguration. Was the conversation mostly insane soliloquy? Sure, but no more than many Obama fans’ rants during the election season. I enjoyed this Unofficial Obama Spokesman because, for a moment, he allowed me to relive the 2008 Presidential Election in all its unabashed love for change, even at the expense of truth. I can only hope that Obama’s performance in office is as strong and fluid as his Spokesman’s on the bus.
 
Finally, for anyone like me who’s seeking a momentary journey back to the time when Obama’s message actually offered people hope rather than just the cold realization that he is not made of magic: I highly recommend the Unofficial Obama Spokesman.
 
 
 
 
Who: Unofficial Obama Spokeman
Next Performance: Somewhere on the 358 in Seattle, heading north on Aurora.

 

The Ease of Waste


by Erin Dunigan


I’m not sure when exactly it hit me.  It may have been as I was brushing my teeth and all of a sudden realized that I had left the water on while brushing. I know better. My neighbor, Linda, whose pool happened to be the site of my first swim, also taught me, somewhere in the same timeframe, the importance of turning off the faucet while you brush in draught prone California. 

The thing is, it’s so easy not to. It’s so easy to leave the water running while I brush my teeth. If, instead, I were walking 5 miles back from the river carrying water in a jug on my head, I’m guessing I would think twice about leaving the tap running. (If I were carrying water in a jug, there probably wouldn’t be a tap to leave running, but you get my point.) 

Sometimes I don’t realize things, though, until I’m forced into them. One such incident happened only a few weeks back on a trip down to Mexico. As in many places on the planet, water is becoming scarce in this little community not too far south of San Diego. So, in order to deal with the somewhat dry well, the water system is turned off on the weekends. I, of course, did not get the memo that this would be happening. So, rather than preparing or planning ahead, I was caught unaware when all of a sudden the twist of the faucet brought no results.

Luckily, I happened to have had plenty of bottled water that I had planned on using for drinking purposes only. It soon became bathing water as well. When you find yourself in the position of bathing from a 1 gallon jug, it suddenly becomes apparent how little water you actually need in order to get clean, but how much water you actually use when cleaning via a shower.

It’s just so easy to waste. It’s not that I’m trying to use up the planet’s resources. But I’ve become so disconnected from the fact that I am doing so, most of the time I do not even realize it. 

I’m not sure how much energy it uses to leave the lights on when I’m not in a room, but I can tell you I do it on a daily basis. What about running the dishwasher if it’s not full? Or flushing the toilet after every visit? (I realize, I may have lost you on that one due to the gross factor, but think about it. Most of the time what goes into the toilet is actually fairly un-smelly and relatively harmless. What about just flushing every other time? Or the old saying, “If it’s yellow that’s mellow, but if it’s brown flush it down.” At least, if nothing else, put a brick in the tank so that less water is used for the unnecessary flushing.)

I wonder if I’d be more careful if it actually cost me something to use these resources. If I had to travel by foot or by bike that would significantly alter my travel patterns that are now so dominated by car or by airplane. If I had to make my own clothing I’d probably not ‘need’ so many different pieces of it. Growing food would be an entirely different experience than simply calling ahead so that it’s ready when I arrive to pick it up.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of the modern convenience.  Though I have lived a number of times with no dish washer and have managed (I did make the mistake as a child visiting my grandmother of asking her, “Mama, how do you do the dishes if you have no dishwasher?” I found out.) just fine, I have never lived without a washing machine and would really not have a clue about how to actually get my clothes clean by hand.  I don’t think there even is any fresh water within a decent walking distance from my house, if I were to have to carry it in a jug. Though I was quite adept at sewing when I took it as a class in junior high there is a reason I have not continued to wear my own creations.

No, it’s not the modern convenience’s fault, really. But somehow on the way to the timesaving features, the resource gulping ones were conveniently ignored. Sure, my leaving the tap water running while brushing my teeth is hardly on the level of corporations depleting a community’s aquifers for their own purposes. But the thing is, turning off the tap is something that I can actually do, and do fairly easily. As long as, that is, I am paying attention. It’s not a trial for me to wait to run the dishwasher until it’s full. I just have to notice.  I can turn off the light when I leave a room, if I remember.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be one or the other—convenience or conserving. But the ease of waste demands that I not sleepwalk through my consumption while the world crumbles. What is required of me is to wake up.

 
More Related to Politics&Power