Oh, right -- It's St. Patrick's Day. I am slightly more Irish than I am Catholic, but only slightly. There. I've noted it.
A couple of good items from Andrew Sullivan:
How Much Fixing Will They Have to Do?
The first, a pocket analysis of Bush's supporters, seems to me to miss in one area, perhaps because Sullivan is somewhat naive:
The question is merely whether the anti-left card will work any more. It barely did the trick last time - in a buoyant economy, in wartime, against a candidate as pathetic as Kerry, Bush could have lost if a few thousand votes in Ohio hadn't been beaten out of the anti-gay scrub.
What Sullivan doesn't mention is the very real possibility that those votes didn't come from real voters. There are enough credible concerns about the elections in Ohio (and other states) that were swept under the carpet that we have no surety that Bush actually won the election in 2004.
The question is now, How strong does the backlash have to be to overwhelm attempts to fix the elections?
It's an Orientation, Not a Choice:
The second items hits very close to home, this one from Jonathan Rauch:
"Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?
If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?
If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly."
Mmm -- that would be me. I really can't deal with large events -- they literally make me crazy, and so I avoid them. People don't bore me, although that seems to be the immediate assumption; in fact, I find them very interesting -- at a distance, and for short periods. Then I need a break.
I can be very lively one-on-one, even for an entire evening. One of my closest friends is also an introvert; when we would spend an evening together, we usually went to a concert or performance so that we wouldn't have to talk (he liked talking even less than I do); afterward, we would have dinner or coffee amid silence, or he would ask questions about things I know about so there would be some sort of conversation, generally a monologue by me. Then I would need the next day to recover from all that talking.
How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice?
First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation.
Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?"
Third, don't say anything else, either.
(Read Rauch's article. It really is thought-provoking and pretty funny.)
They Are Really, Truly Anti-Woman:
On the other side of the spectrum (from humorous to not at all) is this post from Pam's House Blend:
Kathy finds herself concerned on behalf of her three daughters, "who have to live in Bush's America."
"I see the impetus for most of these laws as either political payback to religious conservatives or deep-seated contempt for women—or both," Kathy said. "Banning abortion certainly won't stop it, but girls and women will start dying again. The inherent lack of concern and lack of respect for women does not bode well for the future of my three daughters."
Kathy's frustration with the current attack on abortion rights is coupled with what she sees as a selective interest in protecting life.
"I also have big problems with the hypocrisy of those who oppose abortion under any circumstances but also oppose comprehensive sex education, use of contraceptives, and provision of funding to ensure that all pregnant women have access to good prenatal care and that all children have food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care. They seem more interested in punishing women for having sex than they are in 'saving the unborn.'
I understand (again) why this is a feminist issue, and how it's been derailed by the smokescreen of "saving the children." It's not about children any more than the Catholic Church's stance on adoption by gays is about children. It's a reflection of a really sick, anti-human philosophy disguised as religious belief.
Thinking about it, it's not about Jesus, either. The religious part is pure crap. As I said to an online correspondent recently, you can believe anything you want. That doesn't mean I have to credit you with any intelligence.
It fits in with this development, in the following post:
An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.
Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.
The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.
I Love Happy Endings:
And finally, on a cheerful note:
A group that has spent years battling LGBT civil rights in Maine is out of money and says it will likely have to lay off staff.
The Christian Civic League of Maine is pleading with supporters for cash, but it appears after a series of high profile defeats the plea is falling on deaf ears.
The organization spent all of the money it had for the first quarter of 2006 on last year's effort to repeal the state's LGBT civil rights protections.
They're losing. They're really, really losing.
No comments:
Post a Comment