is just too gruesome. The commentary is even more gruesome. I'm sitting here trying to think of something a little more upbeat to post -- let's see: something nice to look at, a little light-hearted (or a lot), cheery and optimistic.
Aha!
In spite of the bit at the very beginning, this one's relentlessly upbeat. (But pay attention -- those flashbacks are really important.) I've done a Review in Brief of it here, and it's become one of my favorite things to watch when I'm really tired and need just to relax a bit.
If you want to watch the whole thing, it's available at Aarinfantasy (you have to join the forums and have BitTorrent or equivalent software to download anime) and it's on YouTube.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Keep Pushing
From Pam's House Blend, a note that Rachel Maddow does it again: nailing Obama on DADT:
I like the contrast with his campaign speeches. From November 29, 2007:
Unfortunately, instead of leadership, what we're getting from this commander-in-chief is headlong retreat. I like Maddow's comment: "I wonder what his [Obama's] record would be like so far if he weren't a fierce advocate for gay rights."
Add in this story about the Supreme Court refusing certiori on a DADT case -- at the administration's request -- and you start to see why I'm not real happy: I don't like the picture that's emerging here at all.
In the "don't ask, don't tell" case, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.
But the administration doesn't have to defend the policy -- it can elect not to. In fact, Obama has all sorts of options here that are not being explored.
I sort of wonder how much of Rahm Emanuel's influence we're seeing here? Somehow, having Mr. Republican-Lite as WH chief of staff doesn't reassure me a great deal. Whatever the cause, we voted for a leader, but got a Chicago politician.
I like the contrast with his campaign speeches. From November 29, 2007:
Unfortunately, instead of leadership, what we're getting from this commander-in-chief is headlong retreat. I like Maddow's comment: "I wonder what his [Obama's] record would be like so far if he weren't a fierce advocate for gay rights."
Add in this story about the Supreme Court refusing certiori on a DADT case -- at the administration's request -- and you start to see why I'm not real happy: I don't like the picture that's emerging here at all.
In the "don't ask, don't tell" case, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.
But the administration doesn't have to defend the policy -- it can elect not to. In fact, Obama has all sorts of options here that are not being explored.
I sort of wonder how much of Rahm Emanuel's influence we're seeing here? Somehow, having Mr. Republican-Lite as WH chief of staff doesn't reassure me a great deal. Whatever the cause, we voted for a leader, but got a Chicago politician.
"Disordered Appetites"
Ran across another anti-gay screed, this one from a Catholic, at Andrew Sullivan. (It says something that Sullivan has become a Place.) At the risk of boring you, I just want to point out once more the intellectual and logical poverty in these sorts of things. Here's just the first bit of the quote from Sullivan. (I'm not going to link to the article; Sullivan has a link and you can follow it if you want, but I've read it, it's the same sort of self-referential junk we'd expect, completely lacking any contact with objective reality.)
Some maintain that same sex attraction is a genetic predisposition. This is disputed. Even if it were the case, that does not give homosexual activity any more of a claim to being given a special civil rights status. Should we really give disordered appetites civil rights status under the law?
OK: four sentences, two huge holes.
1. The genetic basis of homosexuality is disputed. That doesn't mean it's wrong. The question is, who is disputing it, and on what basis? Granted, this is an opinion piece -- it would have to be, since I doubt that the author, Keith Fournier, could find any factual basis for anything he says, outside of Catholic dogma. The problem remains: opinions based on junk are worthless.
2. Disordered appetites. Another completely subjective and self-referential piece of garbage. (Sorry, but I don't feel like being any nicer about Fournier's ideas than he is being about me and my "appetites." You should all know by now what I think of the Catholic Church's hypocrisy when it comes to moral dicta, and especially the double-talk surrounding the Churcn's position on homosexuality, and frankly, to call a bit of doctrine "Natural Law" when it has nothing to do with nature is more than a little arrogant.)
I'd also like to point out that I don't particularly agree with the idea that we must prove that same-sex attraction is innate before we are worthy of full citizenship. Sorry -- the overwhelming majority of us, like the overwhelming majority of any other group, are responsible, law-abiding, normal people who basically want to be left alone to play the hand we've been dealt as best we can. Frankly, no one ever gave me a choice on who I was going to be drawn to and who I was going to love. That's just the way it is, and frankly, as far as my civil rights go, it should be irrelevant.
It's another piece of drivel, beginning with the almost-required declaration of victimhood and citing the words of a man who facilitated child molesters for decades as moral authority.
Empty noise.
Some maintain that same sex attraction is a genetic predisposition. This is disputed. Even if it were the case, that does not give homosexual activity any more of a claim to being given a special civil rights status. Should we really give disordered appetites civil rights status under the law?
OK: four sentences, two huge holes.
1. The genetic basis of homosexuality is disputed. That doesn't mean it's wrong. The question is, who is disputing it, and on what basis? Granted, this is an opinion piece -- it would have to be, since I doubt that the author, Keith Fournier, could find any factual basis for anything he says, outside of Catholic dogma. The problem remains: opinions based on junk are worthless.
2. Disordered appetites. Another completely subjective and self-referential piece of garbage. (Sorry, but I don't feel like being any nicer about Fournier's ideas than he is being about me and my "appetites." You should all know by now what I think of the Catholic Church's hypocrisy when it comes to moral dicta, and especially the double-talk surrounding the Churcn's position on homosexuality, and frankly, to call a bit of doctrine "Natural Law" when it has nothing to do with nature is more than a little arrogant.)
I'd also like to point out that I don't particularly agree with the idea that we must prove that same-sex attraction is innate before we are worthy of full citizenship. Sorry -- the overwhelming majority of us, like the overwhelming majority of any other group, are responsible, law-abiding, normal people who basically want to be left alone to play the hand we've been dealt as best we can. Frankly, no one ever gave me a choice on who I was going to be drawn to and who I was going to love. That's just the way it is, and frankly, as far as my civil rights go, it should be irrelevant.
It's another piece of drivel, beginning with the almost-required declaration of victimhood and citing the words of a man who facilitated child molesters for decades as moral authority.
Empty noise.
Monday, June 08, 2009
The "Legislative Process" Argument
I've long criticized Andrew Sullivan and Chris Crain and others who insist that legalizing same-sex marriage by legislation rather than "judicial fiat" is the best way to go. One of Ed Brayton's readers at Dispatches from the Culture Wars pointed out something that, I'm ashamed to say, I never thought of:
I'm happy to see this progress, but in some ways it worries me. What voters give they can just as easily take away; think about that before you start crowing too loudly about the superiority of legislative to judicial redress. Jim Crow laws and the tax laws restricting marijuana use, growth, and sale all passed with wide margins and even wider public support. The whole value of the Bill of Rights is that it states that those rights outlined, and many more not mentioned, are inherent to the individual; if the individual's rights are to be determined by legislative fiat, how secure are they really?
That's it, really. The point that the legislative process faction misses is that legislators are in theory accountable for their actions, but only in theory. We've seen too readily recently how voters will blindly follow what they're told rather than what they can see, and when that ideal comes up against reality -- well, it ain't pretty.
Let's face it -- most of us don't know what our representatives are up to on a day-to-day basis, and would probably be appalled to find out. And it's never a straight up vote on the merits -- it's always deal-making and horse-trading. Add in lobbyists and pressure groups, and you've got quite a mix, no?
It's odd to me that someone can rail against lawmakers' susceptibility to special interests (especially special interests with lots of cash) and still maintain that the legislature is the way to go on issues affecting fundamental rights.
Huh?
I'm happy to see this progress, but in some ways it worries me. What voters give they can just as easily take away; think about that before you start crowing too loudly about the superiority of legislative to judicial redress. Jim Crow laws and the tax laws restricting marijuana use, growth, and sale all passed with wide margins and even wider public support. The whole value of the Bill of Rights is that it states that those rights outlined, and many more not mentioned, are inherent to the individual; if the individual's rights are to be determined by legislative fiat, how secure are they really?
That's it, really. The point that the legislative process faction misses is that legislators are in theory accountable for their actions, but only in theory. We've seen too readily recently how voters will blindly follow what they're told rather than what they can see, and when that ideal comes up against reality -- well, it ain't pretty.
Let's face it -- most of us don't know what our representatives are up to on a day-to-day basis, and would probably be appalled to find out. And it's never a straight up vote on the merits -- it's always deal-making and horse-trading. Add in lobbyists and pressure groups, and you've got quite a mix, no?
It's odd to me that someone can rail against lawmakers' susceptibility to special interests (especially special interests with lots of cash) and still maintain that the legislature is the way to go on issues affecting fundamental rights.
Huh?
Health Care
A couple of good posts over at Crooks and Liars. First, John Amato on the single payer plan we're not hearing about. Second, Susie Madrak on efforts to kill any real reform.
From my own view, insurance -- the medical industry as a whole -- is a racket at this point. I've had my share of run-ins with insurance (one that still sticks in my mind is the "nurse's panel" suddenly deciding that a bite plate the insurance had covered for years was not "medically necessary"). The idea of having someone you've never seen nor ever had any contact with deciding what treatment you get is not one that sits well with me. And let's face it, health insurance, like journalism, is something that should never become a for-profit endeavor.
From my own view, insurance -- the medical industry as a whole -- is a racket at this point. I've had my share of run-ins with insurance (one that still sticks in my mind is the "nurse's panel" suddenly deciding that a bite plate the insurance had covered for years was not "medically necessary"). The idea of having someone you've never seen nor ever had any contact with deciding what treatment you get is not one that sits well with me. And let's face it, health insurance, like journalism, is something that should never become a for-profit endeavor.
I Was Really Worried
I feel better now. And we could all use some good news:
The Earth could be habitable for another 2.3 billion years, extending previous estimates of life’s horizon by more than 1 billion years.
The Earth could be habitable for another 2.3 billion years, extending previous estimates of life’s horizon by more than 1 billion years.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Giverny
What happens when a great artist designs a garden:
And here's some of the ways Monet saw it:
I've never been to Giverny. My one trip to Paris, there just wasn't time (and the gardens had not yet been refurbished). I did, however, see the water lily rooms at the Orangerie in the Tuileries Gardens. They were mesmerizing: it was like being there, completely surrounded by the pools and the flowers. Immense canvses mounted on the walls of two oval rooms. They were a gift by Monet to the French Republic.
And I live in Chicago. The Art Institute has what are probably the strongest holdings of Monet outside of France -- and its collection arguably rivals most of those in France. At one point they had a gallery at the top of the main stair devoted entirely to Monet, set up chronologically. Just the smaller canvases, of course. The large "Irises" and "Water Lilies" were still installed in the Impressionist galleries. But still.
Thanks to Chris in Paris at AmericaBlog for the video.
And here's some of the ways Monet saw it:
I've never been to Giverny. My one trip to Paris, there just wasn't time (and the gardens had not yet been refurbished). I did, however, see the water lily rooms at the Orangerie in the Tuileries Gardens. They were mesmerizing: it was like being there, completely surrounded by the pools and the flowers. Immense canvses mounted on the walls of two oval rooms. They were a gift by Monet to the French Republic.
And I live in Chicago. The Art Institute has what are probably the strongest holdings of Monet outside of France -- and its collection arguably rivals most of those in France. At one point they had a gallery at the top of the main stair devoted entirely to Monet, set up chronologically. Just the smaller canvases, of course. The large "Irises" and "Water Lilies" were still installed in the Impressionist galleries. But still.
Thanks to Chris in Paris at AmericaBlog for the video.
Reviews in Brief: Momoko Tenzen's The Paradise on the Hill
I find it hard to believe that I haven't noted this title here, since it's become one of my very favorite BL manga. The Paradise on the Hill is a romantic comedy by the creator of Seven, and it's just as spare and elliptical -- and even more unexpected -- than that one.
Kijima is a language teacher at an all girls high school that sits perched atop a hill above the city. He is reserved, quiet, and serious, although he's also a terrible tease. Ono is the new gym teacher, six years younger, tall, good-looking, and somewhat shy. He seeks Kijima's advice after Kijima witnesses a student confessing her love to the younger man. The two become friends, and then start reaching for something more.
This is a wonderful, charming comedy, completely motivated by the characters of the two men. The courtship is so tentative, awkward, and unsure that, under normal circumstances I'd get pretty thoroughly fed up, but Tenzen has handled it in such a way that not only are we captivated, but we find ourselves rooting for them. Each confesses to the other that he has feelings for someone, and it turns out that someone also has feelings for someone, and given the reticence of the two, we can see that circularity going on forever, if it weren't for the intervention of Tsuda, a fellow teacher who realizes she has no chance with either of them and gives things a nudge in the right direction just when they're about to come apart completely.
There is a side story, "Summer Rain," that is one of Tenzen's more serious efforts. Motomi Takase fell in love when he was eighteen, with an older man who had a wife and child. Their love was deep and intense, but Takase couldn't take responsibility for breaking up the man's family and fled. Ten years later, he is now back in town and has received a letter signed Hiroyuki Kasahara, his lover from long before, asking to meet. It begins to rain as Takase approaches the coffee shop where the meeting is to take place; there is only one other customer, a young man who's little more than a boy. They begin talking, which eventually leads to some serious revelations.
Underneath Tenzen's stories is what I'm coming to see as her ongoing theme: the price of happiness. It's always, it seems, involved with taking risks. In the case of Ono and Kijima, the fear of rejection almost destroys what they've been building. Takase's story is a study in the much greater cost of running away, of being afraid to pay the price. (And that story is quietly devastating.)
The drawing is up to the standard of Seven, although I still consider that one her best work to date (and by comparison with this one, that's only just barely). Graphically, Paradise is superb, not only in the character designs and renderings, but in the page layouts and visual flow, and especially in her variations in tone and shading, which add body and depth to her spare, evocative style. It's a pleasure just to look at the pages.
Another one from Juné.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Prop 8 Feedback
Got the following from reader PietB. I'm going to come back and comment on it, and really should have posted it before now (my bad). Piet's remarks seem to be right on point, and I think I may agree with him -- even though it means I may have been wrong in my previous comments. Well, it happens. (And unlike many, I'll admit it.)
The argument that was supposed to be being considered in this case was whether Prop. 8 was an amendment or a revision, not whether it pertained to a definition. The majority opinion stated and re-stated that the decision only restricted the word marriage to male-female couples, but in fact that assertion is the only way the opinion could be said to be doing that because nowhere in the reasoning did the Chief Justice actually discuss whether they were talking about a defining restriction, and the case wasn't about that. An amendment to the California Constitution is supposed to be about something like restricting the perch catch in the Delta in alternate months; a revision is used when a fundamental organizing principle of government is involved. If the Justices had actually been reasoning around that difference, they would have had to find that Prop. 8 was a revision because it does fundamentally change the way the State government operates by placing a restriction on the activities of the Justices of the Peace and County governments in general as to who may or may not receive a marriage license. In In re Marriage Cases, the Court properly found that the Constitution guarantees equal rights in all things to all State residents. The Court in that case made law by interpretation of the Constitution, which is what the Court is supposed to do.
In Strauss, the Court was supposed to be deciding the validity of the Proposition, not defining or re-defining the word "marriage". They assert that they are narrowly defining "marriage" in their decision, but in fact that wasn't presented for their deliberations. Nowhere do they substantively discuss the governmental effects of Proposition 8. And the wording of the proposition itself does not lead to considering it as a definition amendment; what it says is the only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. It doesn't say, "but a civil union between two adults of the same sex is valid and recognized", and it doesn't present any remedy for the discrimination implicit in the ballot language. Kenneth Starr of evil memory argued for the proponents of Prop. 8 and an oilier performance I never have seen in a court of law. Under questioning, he cheerfully agreed that Prop. 8 set up two classes of citizens, but declined to agree that setting up two classes of citizens would affect how the government did its business. Justice Kennard, whose judicial history seemed to point to better sense than she displayed, insisted in her line of questioning that if a proposition were going to substantially affect how the government works it must have a quantity of language in direct proportion to the amount of effect, and implied that Prop. 8's few words (only fourteen) meant it had little effect. I sat down and wrote out several highly discriminatory ballot propositions that would have profoundly affected the way government works but had even fewer words that Prop. 8. The one restricting the vote to white male property owners had twelve words, two fewer than Prop. 8 but of course with much more profound effect on how the government would operate.
The "logic" in the opinions (both the majority opinion and the two concurring opinions) was so strained that I thought someone must surely have developed a hernia. When I say "shame on the Court", it's not because of the decision itself, it's for the intellectual dishonesty displayed in the opinions. The only one who seems to have considered the actual cause of the suit was the dissenter, Justice Moreno. Two of the Justices are up for re-election next year; if they have any personal integrity they won't run, but if they do I intend to work to remove them from the bench. I've spent all but six months of my life as a second-class citizen and I'm sick and tired of it.
As I say, I'll have to come back to this -- on deadline for music reviews (and be sure to check out the June 14 edition of Green Man Review -- major piece on Mahler coming up) and I really want to get this stuff off my desk.
The argument that was supposed to be being considered in this case was whether Prop. 8 was an amendment or a revision, not whether it pertained to a definition. The majority opinion stated and re-stated that the decision only restricted the word marriage to male-female couples, but in fact that assertion is the only way the opinion could be said to be doing that because nowhere in the reasoning did the Chief Justice actually discuss whether they were talking about a defining restriction, and the case wasn't about that. An amendment to the California Constitution is supposed to be about something like restricting the perch catch in the Delta in alternate months; a revision is used when a fundamental organizing principle of government is involved. If the Justices had actually been reasoning around that difference, they would have had to find that Prop. 8 was a revision because it does fundamentally change the way the State government operates by placing a restriction on the activities of the Justices of the Peace and County governments in general as to who may or may not receive a marriage license. In In re Marriage Cases, the Court properly found that the Constitution guarantees equal rights in all things to all State residents. The Court in that case made law by interpretation of the Constitution, which is what the Court is supposed to do.
In Strauss, the Court was supposed to be deciding the validity of the Proposition, not defining or re-defining the word "marriage". They assert that they are narrowly defining "marriage" in their decision, but in fact that wasn't presented for their deliberations. Nowhere do they substantively discuss the governmental effects of Proposition 8. And the wording of the proposition itself does not lead to considering it as a definition amendment; what it says is the only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. It doesn't say, "but a civil union between two adults of the same sex is valid and recognized", and it doesn't present any remedy for the discrimination implicit in the ballot language. Kenneth Starr of evil memory argued for the proponents of Prop. 8 and an oilier performance I never have seen in a court of law. Under questioning, he cheerfully agreed that Prop. 8 set up two classes of citizens, but declined to agree that setting up two classes of citizens would affect how the government did its business. Justice Kennard, whose judicial history seemed to point to better sense than she displayed, insisted in her line of questioning that if a proposition were going to substantially affect how the government works it must have a quantity of language in direct proportion to the amount of effect, and implied that Prop. 8's few words (only fourteen) meant it had little effect. I sat down and wrote out several highly discriminatory ballot propositions that would have profoundly affected the way government works but had even fewer words that Prop. 8. The one restricting the vote to white male property owners had twelve words, two fewer than Prop. 8 but of course with much more profound effect on how the government would operate.
The "logic" in the opinions (both the majority opinion and the two concurring opinions) was so strained that I thought someone must surely have developed a hernia. When I say "shame on the Court", it's not because of the decision itself, it's for the intellectual dishonesty displayed in the opinions. The only one who seems to have considered the actual cause of the suit was the dissenter, Justice Moreno. Two of the Justices are up for re-election next year; if they have any personal integrity they won't run, but if they do I intend to work to remove them from the bench. I've spent all but six months of my life as a second-class citizen and I'm sick and tired of it.
As I say, I'll have to come back to this -- on deadline for music reviews (and be sure to check out the June 14 edition of Green Man Review -- major piece on Mahler coming up) and I really want to get this stuff off my desk.
What Kind of Person
Sends a wedding message like this?
This is what Jeremy Hooper got from Peter LaBarbera in honor of his wedding.
Which do you think best describes the giver?
1. Arrogant;
2. Self-Absorbed;
3. Tenuous grasp on reality;
4. Does not play well with others;
5. Rude and discourteous;
6. Probably has severe personality conflicts.
Note to Jeremy: While LaBarbera is a joke nationwide, his reputation at home in Illinois is even lower: he's known not only as a part of the lunatic fringe, but a total loser. He was booted out of the Illinois Family Institute (which, if I'm not mistaken, he founded) because he was completely ineffective -- not that they've done any better since. And neither has he.
This is what Jeremy Hooper got from Peter LaBarbera in honor of his wedding.
Which do you think best describes the giver?
1. Arrogant;
2. Self-Absorbed;
3. Tenuous grasp on reality;
4. Does not play well with others;
5. Rude and discourteous;
6. Probably has severe personality conflicts.
Note to Jeremy: While LaBarbera is a joke nationwide, his reputation at home in Illinois is even lower: he's known not only as a part of the lunatic fringe, but a total loser. He was booted out of the Illinois Family Institute (which, if I'm not mistaken, he founded) because he was completely ineffective -- not that they've done any better since. And neither has he.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Friday Gay Blogging: On-the-Run Edition
A quick one for today, and I'll probably come back with more over the weekend. This one pisses me off:
From an interview of President Barack Obama by Brian Williams of NBC, in response to William's question: "Do gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry have a friend in the White House?"
"I think gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House because I've consistently committed myself to civil unions, making sure that they have to visit each other in hospitals, that they are able to access benefits, that they have a whole host of legal rights that they currently do not have. I don't think it makes sense for the federal government to get in the business of determining what marriage is. That isn't traditionally the federal government's role."
As Pam Spaulding notes, the short translation is "No." This answer, from a constitutional scholar, is so full of holes that you could make cheese with it -- except the holes are too big.
First, he's endorsing once again second-class status for same-sex couples. Second, the federal government is already in the business of determining what marriage is: have you heard of DOMA, Mr. President? The law that you pledged to repeal and so far have done nothing about? And I mean nothing.
And note how he hems and haws his way through this one -- as though the question caught him flat. After the grillings that everyone in the administration in a position to make a comment on gay issues have been going through in recent weeks, how is that possible?
It's deja vu all over again: ask a simple question, and the president doesn't have an answer.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
New Hampshire Makes Six
Yesterday's news, but I'm running a little behind (deadline time again).
From AP:
New Hampshire's governor has signed legislation making the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.
Gov. John Lynch was Surrounded by cheering supporters of the move as he signed the three bills about an hour after the key vote on the legislation in the House.
The law will take effect in January, exactly two years after the state legalized civil unions. New Hampshire joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa in recognizing same-sex marriages, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.
Apparently he's satisfied with the "protections" for religious organizations. I haven't seen the compromise language, but I sure hope it's more specific than his original proposal.
From AP:
New Hampshire's governor has signed legislation making the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.
Gov. John Lynch was Surrounded by cheering supporters of the move as he signed the three bills about an hour after the key vote on the legislation in the House.
The law will take effect in January, exactly two years after the state legalized civil unions. New Hampshire joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa in recognizing same-sex marriages, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.
Apparently he's satisfied with the "protections" for religious organizations. I haven't seen the compromise language, but I sure hope it's more specific than his original proposal.
Marriage Videos
Blender Louise has been sharing these over at Pam's House Blend. Keep an eye out -- I'll try to get them here as well.
Here's the latest.
Here's the latest.
Terminology
This post by Waymon Hudson caught my eye over at Pam's House Blend.
I find myself cringing when I hear the word "homosexual."
Yes, I know it is a scientific term and meant to be clinical. And I know it is odd that this word bothers me when I embrace other words like queer, which is horribly offensive to some.
I know this may be in my mind, but I still have a guttural reaction when I hear the word. To me, it seems that more and more the word "homosexual" is becoming the new "faggot." It is being used by the religious right, conservatives, the media, and just about everyone else as a fill-in for a derogatory term.
I have pretty much the same reaction, tinged by a healthy dose of rage, but I have an easy answer for you, Waymon:
It's not the name we chose for ourselves. It's not the name by which we've asked to be known. To continue using it after that is indicative of, at the very least, lack of minimal respect for us as human beings. I won't go so far as to brand all who use that very clinical term with "hater," because I know many of them are not. They just don't know any better.
You're right that it's at least in part a generational thing, but perhaps not in the way you think. I'm thinking specifically of older friends of mine who are unsure as to what is correct. I try to steer them right, but we're talking about people in their 70s and older who have a lifetime habit to break -- and considering the word they are using, it's a lifetime habit of being nice about it, and they are trying.
Let's be very clear about it: the use of the term "homosexual" by the bigots you're referring to is deliberate and meant to be insulting. They do know better. You won't catch any of them referring to African Americans as "Negroes" -- at least, not in public. Their use of the term "homosexual" when referring to people is a deliberate insult, and they know it. It's a refusal to acknowledge that we have any say in our own role in society, and it's a deliberate attempt to diminish our humanity. And that's the compassionate part of their philosophy.
So, we keep educating those who can be educated, and fight the others. What else can we do?
I find myself cringing when I hear the word "homosexual."
Yes, I know it is a scientific term and meant to be clinical. And I know it is odd that this word bothers me when I embrace other words like queer, which is horribly offensive to some.
I know this may be in my mind, but I still have a guttural reaction when I hear the word. To me, it seems that more and more the word "homosexual" is becoming the new "faggot." It is being used by the religious right, conservatives, the media, and just about everyone else as a fill-in for a derogatory term.
I have pretty much the same reaction, tinged by a healthy dose of rage, but I have an easy answer for you, Waymon:
It's not the name we chose for ourselves. It's not the name by which we've asked to be known. To continue using it after that is indicative of, at the very least, lack of minimal respect for us as human beings. I won't go so far as to brand all who use that very clinical term with "hater," because I know many of them are not. They just don't know any better.
You're right that it's at least in part a generational thing, but perhaps not in the way you think. I'm thinking specifically of older friends of mine who are unsure as to what is correct. I try to steer them right, but we're talking about people in their 70s and older who have a lifetime habit to break -- and considering the word they are using, it's a lifetime habit of being nice about it, and they are trying.
Let's be very clear about it: the use of the term "homosexual" by the bigots you're referring to is deliberate and meant to be insulting. They do know better. You won't catch any of them referring to African Americans as "Negroes" -- at least, not in public. Their use of the term "homosexual" when referring to people is a deliberate insult, and they know it. It's a refusal to acknowledge that we have any say in our own role in society, and it's a deliberate attempt to diminish our humanity. And that's the compassionate part of their philosophy.
So, we keep educating those who can be educated, and fight the others. What else can we do?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Back Burner
Ran across this this open letter from Robin Tyler at AmericaBlog this morning, and I think I agree. It's getting to the point at which the national gay rights organizations, which Andrew Sullivan with some justification called appendages of the Democratic party, are bearing a more than passing resemblance to the Log Cabin Republicans.
It's not that I expected everything to be a done deal within the first hundred days, but I had hoped for some leadership. What we're getting from Obama and the Democrats is a headlong retreat from confronting gay issues. and I'm fed up. You can't be a leader if you won't even acknowledge events.
It's not that I expected everything to be a done deal within the first hundred days, but I had hoped for some leadership. What we're getting from Obama and the Democrats is a headlong retreat from confronting gay issues. and I'm fed up. You can't be a leader if you won't even acknowledge events.
Interim
Sorry for the silence here, but I'm swamped, and I've only got this morning free. Whether that's going to result in an actual post I don't know. The three stories I've been following:
Prop 8/Marriage: I have a very strong and thoughtful e-mail from a reader that merits attention, and there is breaking news in New Hampshire. Irony of the day: Dick Cheney is to the left of Barack Obama on same-sex marriage. Pam's House Blend has had some decent coverage, but this one got buried by the next two.
George Tiller: It's sort of fun watching the demagogues on the right trying to get out from under this one, especially O'Reilly. Andrew Sullivan has been focusing on this one -- go back a couple of days.
Sonia Sotomayor: Once again, it looks as though the right insists on shooting itself in the foot, which is all to the good: the sooner the Republican party collapses completely, the sooner they can rebuild it into something worth having. Hilzoy and Digby have been giving this one good coverage.
Maybe by this weekend.
Prop 8/Marriage: I have a very strong and thoughtful e-mail from a reader that merits attention, and there is breaking news in New Hampshire. Irony of the day: Dick Cheney is to the left of Barack Obama on same-sex marriage. Pam's House Blend has had some decent coverage, but this one got buried by the next two.
George Tiller: It's sort of fun watching the demagogues on the right trying to get out from under this one, especially O'Reilly. Andrew Sullivan has been focusing on this one -- go back a couple of days.
Sonia Sotomayor: Once again, it looks as though the right insists on shooting itself in the foot, which is all to the good: the sooner the Republican party collapses completely, the sooner they can rebuild it into something worth having. Hilzoy and Digby have been giving this one good coverage.
Maybe by this weekend.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Ah, the Good Old Days
Hilzoy has a wonderful post on this article by Rod Dreher. If you read this blog regularly, you know that I'm not terribly impressed with Dreher's analytic skills, and this time is no exception. There are some huge holes in his reasoning here.
What could that mean for conservatives today? That we should consider what I’ve come to call the “Benedict Option”—that is, pioneering forms of dropping out of a barbaric mainstream culture that has grown hostile to our fundamental values. The case for traditional conservatives to make a strategic retreat to defensible perimeters, so to speak, has become even more appealing since 1999, when Paul Weyrich issued his famous fin de siècle call for conservatives to pull back radically from “a [cultural] collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.”
If you buy Dreher's assumptions -- and there is really no reason you should, and I don't -- this perhaps makes a modicum of sense. The first red flag, of course, is the appeal to "fundamental values." I hear a lot about these things, and no one ever seems willing to tell me exactly what they're talking about. Backtracking a bit:
The Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre famously ended his landmark 1982 book After Virtue with a gloomy meditation about the collapse of a common moral sense in the West. He suggested that we were too far gone into nihilism and relativism to save and that those devoted to the traditional virtues should consider hiving off, as Benedict and his followers did in Rome’s final days, to build communities that can withstand the incoming tide of chaos and despond.
"Common moral sense." I wonder when we've ever had such a thing. Of course, Dreher is quoting a Catholic philospher, so I guess we are supposed to figure that the world hasn't changed at all since the Reformation except for now, when it's all coming unglued. And of course, the assertion that we're all sunk in the cesspit of "nihilism and relativism" should be an automatic response by now, except that we're not. Not even most of us. Let me put it this way: I'm not Catholic, nor even Christian, and yet I don't think I'm bereft of morality. In fact, I think I'm a lot more deliberately and consciously moral than an institution that has regularly condoned completely appalling behavior throughout its history.
Dreher goes on to recount a dream involving the poet Constantine Cavafy, whom he professes not to know much about at all, which is probably what leads to one of those blinding ironies that so beset conservative pundits: Cavafy, as anyone who knows anything about the poet's life knows full well, was gay. And quite unapologetically so, at least in his verse.
The nut of this article, for me, and the part that throws into relief the major flaw in these sorts of screeds, is here:
Conservatives have worked so hard over the past few decades to fight for civilized standards against a short checklist of modern barbarisms—abortion, gay marriage, political correctness, and so forth. What we failed to consider was that we had become barbarians ourselves.
With the possible exception of abortion, I fail to see how anything else he lists counts as "barbarism." It seems to be another case of being Humpty Dumpty: "It means what I say it means --until I change my mind."
Trouble is, MacIntyre really is right, and so was Weyrich. From a traditionalist perspective, we truly are living through an astonishing, and astonishingly rapid, cultural collapse, living as free riders on the residual vestiges of Christianity.
There is a tendency on the right (that is to say, among "traditionalists") to view any time of cultural ferment as the final collapse of Western civilization. That is, as far as I can see, a matter of choice: you can take it as ruin, or as a chance at transformation. Traditionalists such as Dreher seem to have, somewhere in the back of their minds, the idea that what they imagine the world to have been like in the past is some sort of Eden, and anything that's happening now is by definition a disaster. Of course, the history they imagine never existed.
Hilzoy's commentary comes from a different direction than this one, but I think we're arguing the same point. In my view, Dreher's "fundamental values" are those of exclusion, privilege, hostility toward the Other, a readiness to condemn, and unquestioning obedience to authority.* Those are qualities you would have been as likely to find among the followers of Atilla the Hun as among the defenders of the Empire. And frankly, for my part, he can keep them. I don't consider myself a barbarian, although I'm starting to consider that he might be.
* By way of comparison, I was raised with what I like to consider real traditional values -- and I think one can consider them true values, not merely a fixation on centuries-old tribal taboos -- that have served me in good stead. They include respect for others, acceptance of their differences, delight in their virtues, independence and self-reliance, generosity in helping others, and grace in accepting their generosity. That's just a start. Frankly, if I and those like me are barbarians, the world is in good hands.
What could that mean for conservatives today? That we should consider what I’ve come to call the “Benedict Option”—that is, pioneering forms of dropping out of a barbaric mainstream culture that has grown hostile to our fundamental values. The case for traditional conservatives to make a strategic retreat to defensible perimeters, so to speak, has become even more appealing since 1999, when Paul Weyrich issued his famous fin de siècle call for conservatives to pull back radically from “a [cultural] collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.”
If you buy Dreher's assumptions -- and there is really no reason you should, and I don't -- this perhaps makes a modicum of sense. The first red flag, of course, is the appeal to "fundamental values." I hear a lot about these things, and no one ever seems willing to tell me exactly what they're talking about. Backtracking a bit:
The Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre famously ended his landmark 1982 book After Virtue with a gloomy meditation about the collapse of a common moral sense in the West. He suggested that we were too far gone into nihilism and relativism to save and that those devoted to the traditional virtues should consider hiving off, as Benedict and his followers did in Rome’s final days, to build communities that can withstand the incoming tide of chaos and despond.
"Common moral sense." I wonder when we've ever had such a thing. Of course, Dreher is quoting a Catholic philospher, so I guess we are supposed to figure that the world hasn't changed at all since the Reformation except for now, when it's all coming unglued. And of course, the assertion that we're all sunk in the cesspit of "nihilism and relativism" should be an automatic response by now, except that we're not. Not even most of us. Let me put it this way: I'm not Catholic, nor even Christian, and yet I don't think I'm bereft of morality. In fact, I think I'm a lot more deliberately and consciously moral than an institution that has regularly condoned completely appalling behavior throughout its history.
Dreher goes on to recount a dream involving the poet Constantine Cavafy, whom he professes not to know much about at all, which is probably what leads to one of those blinding ironies that so beset conservative pundits: Cavafy, as anyone who knows anything about the poet's life knows full well, was gay. And quite unapologetically so, at least in his verse.
The nut of this article, for me, and the part that throws into relief the major flaw in these sorts of screeds, is here:
Conservatives have worked so hard over the past few decades to fight for civilized standards against a short checklist of modern barbarisms—abortion, gay marriage, political correctness, and so forth. What we failed to consider was that we had become barbarians ourselves.
With the possible exception of abortion, I fail to see how anything else he lists counts as "barbarism." It seems to be another case of being Humpty Dumpty: "It means what I say it means --until I change my mind."
Trouble is, MacIntyre really is right, and so was Weyrich. From a traditionalist perspective, we truly are living through an astonishing, and astonishingly rapid, cultural collapse, living as free riders on the residual vestiges of Christianity.
There is a tendency on the right (that is to say, among "traditionalists") to view any time of cultural ferment as the final collapse of Western civilization. That is, as far as I can see, a matter of choice: you can take it as ruin, or as a chance at transformation. Traditionalists such as Dreher seem to have, somewhere in the back of their minds, the idea that what they imagine the world to have been like in the past is some sort of Eden, and anything that's happening now is by definition a disaster. Of course, the history they imagine never existed.
Hilzoy's commentary comes from a different direction than this one, but I think we're arguing the same point. In my view, Dreher's "fundamental values" are those of exclusion, privilege, hostility toward the Other, a readiness to condemn, and unquestioning obedience to authority.* Those are qualities you would have been as likely to find among the followers of Atilla the Hun as among the defenders of the Empire. And frankly, for my part, he can keep them. I don't consider myself a barbarian, although I'm starting to consider that he might be.
* By way of comparison, I was raised with what I like to consider real traditional values -- and I think one can consider them true values, not merely a fixation on centuries-old tribal taboos -- that have served me in good stead. They include respect for others, acceptance of their differences, delight in their virtues, independence and self-reliance, generosity in helping others, and grace in accepting their generosity. That's just a start. Frankly, if I and those like me are barbarians, the world is in good hands.
Tooting My Horn
The latest issue of Green Man Review is up today, including a mini-story by me I'm very pleased with (it starts right after the introduction).
And if you scroll down to the reviews listing, you get to read my three (yes, count 'em, three) reviews of The Books of Magic, a pretty wonderful graphic novel series by Neil Gaiman, John Ney Rieber, and others.
It's an interesting issue anyway -- be sure to read our recommendations on best fantasy/science fiction series.
I've also updated the Epinions listing in the sidebar -- quite a few new yaoi reviews there.
And if you scroll down to the reviews listing, you get to read my three (yes, count 'em, three) reviews of The Books of Magic, a pretty wonderful graphic novel series by Neil Gaiman, John Ney Rieber, and others.
It's an interesting issue anyway -- be sure to read our recommendations on best fantasy/science fiction series.
I've also updated the Epinions listing in the sidebar -- quite a few new yaoi reviews there.
Reviews in Brief: Youka Nitta's White Brand
Continuing my tour of the works of Youka Nitta, I recently got hold of her collection White Brand a group of stories first published in 1998. It's a bit of a mixed bag.One problem with this collection is that there's not much to tie it together, except the various neuroses on prominent display. The two parts of the title story involve Keshiki and Izuru, cousins who were best friends as children, until a tragic accident took Keshiki's father and ruined their friendship. Keshiki came away from the trauma with an aversion to dark things, and Izuru is dark: dark hair, dark eyes, and brown skin. Now they're attending the same high school, and Izuru has decided enough is enough.
White skin figures in "Teal End," about Keith, an American who has come to Japan to learn lacquer painting. Keith really wishes he were Japanese -- although his talent is remarkable, he's not truly accepted by his fellows, except for Takeshi, the master's son, who himself has no aptitude for his father's trade. Even though all obstacles are eventually overcome, this one has a funny little coda that throws the issue into sharp focus.
The remaining three stories are all quite strange and not so satisfying as the first two. I think, however, this is largely because they're as much sketches as anything else: more development would have solved most of the problems here: they're all kind of bare bones and elliptical, and all could use more development.
The graphic style is gorgeous -- not so finished nor as rich as later works such as The Prime Minister's Secret Diplomacy -- at this point, in a class by itself -- but still tremendously appealing. Nitta's characters have smiles that light up their entire faces. And of course, they're all gorgeous. Her sex scenes tend to be fairly explicit, but that's not much of an issue here -- there's very little sex.
I'd recommend this one simply because it's Youka Nitta. It is very interesting to see earlier work by an acknowledged master of BL manga. From Juné.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)