News Flash....South Dakota's Abortion Bill Rejected

This just in from the Coat-Hanger state.....a South Dakota senate committee killed the latest abortion bill in a lopsided 8-1 vote. So the most recent anti-choice legislation in the state didn't even make it out of committee.

The right-wing nuts in South Dakota had somehow convinced themselves that their crushing November 2006 defeat was because their ballot measure contained no provisions for rape, incest, and the heath of the mother. But even with those provisions added, the results have been the same for the anti-choice radicals.

After this humiliating defeat for the zealots, regional Planned Parenthood President and CEO Sarah Stoesz still offered a bit of olive-branch saying today that:

"Planned Parenthood is committed to providing women with practical tools that truly reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy. We call on all those interested in preventing abortion to join with us in working to secure practical tools that prevent unintended pregnancies, such as comprehensive family planning services and education for South Dakotans."

This makes it clear that the abortion debate might be waning--at least I hope say. And as Stoesz also mentions in her statement,
"criminalizing abortion will not eliminate it." Maybe people are finally starting to figure that out.

Whistlin' Dixie in South Carolina

In a South Carolina campaign stop this week, Senator Hillary Clinton said that the Confederate flag should be removed from the statehouse grounds in Columbia because, "the nation should unite under one banner while at war."

I have some problems with her statement--it sounds like it was written by a committee of political advisers. And I believe that Clinton is swiftly gaining the reputation of being a major triangulator. She really needs a Sister Souldjah Moment soon.

But.....solidifying her African-American base, even with a weak and watered-down comment on the CSA flag is not so difficult to understand. I will give her a pass on this one. I would like to know, however, what happens when the Iraq War ends (if ever)? Does the old rebel flag go right back up the pole?

By the way--most of the left has actually criticized the NAACP for overemphasizing the Confederate flag matter. Mother Jones wrote in 2000 that the this was a “side-show” and was accentuated at the “expense of meaningful activism on issues that really matter to African-Americans.” Z-Net agreed in 2002 arguing that the flag issue was a “near textbook example of the NAACP’s strategy of elevating peripheral issues…and taking minimal action on the piles of crisis that devastate poor and working class black communities.”

Here is my complaint--it's not with Clinton, it's with our nation's inability to adequately examine this issue. I understand politics as well as the next person. I know that Senator Clinton cannot say what needs to be said about that flag. But when is someone going to be honest? Here is what needs to be told to the the pro-Confederate flag crowd:


"We are truly sorry that your Uncle Cletus died in the Civil War--we understand that he fought gallantly at Bull Run and Gettysburg. But here are the facts—the Confederate flag stands for hatred and racism—it does now; and it always has. It is a symbol of white supremacy and white power. It is a symbol of bigotry and anti-Semitism. The Confederate flag stands as a powerful statement against racial diversity, against communities of color, and against religious minorities. And while not everyone who raises that flag is a racist—that is what that the stars and bars represents. Your ancestors started that war, not for states rights, but to keep humans in bondage. And that fact can never be denied. This is why the Confederate flag should be taken down….and it should be taken down forever.”

McCain and Roe v. Wade

I thoroughly enjoy blogging--it has allowed me to rediscover the joys of writing. Buddy's Books and Bait has forced me to meticulously frame my political ideas in a thoughtful and coherent fashion—and that has been extremely satisfying for me intellectually. That’s why I plan to keep blogging even if I have few readers.

But the frustrating part of researching and writing about politics is that one has to actually read all the half-baked ideas that are floating around. I know that many of my political rants are not original—and the topics are often warmed-over debates that should have been put to rest years ago. But if politicians want to raise these tired subjects, I suppose I will respond.

Which brings me to John McCain. Yesterday, McCain made his strongest statement to date on his opposition to Roe v. Wade. In order to ingratiate himself even further with conservative voters, the Arizona senator said Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Now this is not big news, right? We know McCain is positioning himself for the 2008 Republican primaries. And while I strongly disagree with him regarding Roe, I’m not voting for him anyway.

But here is what I find maddening about McCain and the anti-abortion nuts. During the 2000 campaign, McCain was much more measured on the abortion issue. Remember, he was the self-appointed moderate back then. He declared at that time that if his daughter wanted an abortion, he would leave that decision up to her. Clearly there was some political posturing in that statement—but there is also something very slimy. So John McCain will not have the state force his daughter to carry her pregnancy to full term—but he has no trouble forcing millions of other women to do so.

This is where I return to my earlier statement—we shouldn't have to still point out these glaring inconsistencies. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, upper class white women will still be able to afford abortions; will still be able to travel to out-of-state clinics, will still continue to procure birth control and understand how to use it—it’s all the others, the millions of poor women, teens, and others in situations very different from John McCain’s daughter……these are the people that WILL be adversely affected if McCain and his ilk are allowed to keep appointing Fascists to the courts.

Isn’t this obvious? Does McCain see the inconsistency—or not? Isn’t it so damned clear that abortion laws are written to keep poor and minority women from having sex and producing babies that, according to conservatives at least, the taxpayers will then have to support? These restrictive laws were never intended for nice, white Republican girls—we trust them of course. If they get pregnant, it was probably due to special circumstance. McCain’s daughter will never have to deal with these life-changing reproductive issues—the rules will never apply to her.

Do you think McCain knows this? Should I/we email his office and point it out? I really don’t get it. Maybe this is just an example of white privilege. A case where a white politician doesn't even fathom how different people are affected by his decisions. Am I missing something?

George W. and George W.

Thank you President Bush for making such dumbass statements that I have something to write about.

Yesterday (President's Day), our illustrious leader compared himself favorably to George Washington. We all know that George Washington is still considered one of America's greatest leaders. Bush on the other hand (and I will quote Wonkette on this one), "is a jackass who actually lost one election to Al Gore and nearly lost another to John Kerry. He lost both wars he started." Well-said.

Bush drew parallels between what Washington faced and the troubles that he now confronts with the War on Terror. The president stated that Washington and his "ragged Continental Army" faced disaster, but in the end, "General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable." An obvious reference to his unbreakable will against all odds in the current Iraq mess--which he started.

Yes, these two men have so much in common. Sometimes you just can't believe what this guy says. I don't think any additional comments are necessary.

Drew Gilpin Faust

While this might be relatively old news, I still want to offer my heartfelt delight and glee for Drew Gilpin Faust, recently named the first female president of Harvard University. The obvious reasons have been discussed in the media for the past week—I want to simply make a few personal comments.

Primarily, let’s not forget what an esteemed and respected historian she is. Dr. Faust has written two seminal books: Mothers of Invention: Women of the Slaveholding South in the American Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 1996); and James Henry Hammond and the Old South: A Design for Mastery (LSU, 1982).

The media has mentioned Mothers of Invention , but only briefly (but what should we expect from the American media). In that book, Faust challenges some of the common stereotypes of the "helpless" Southern white women—and then shows how the War changed her plight completely. Southern white women (and Faust writes primarily about upper and middle class women), were compelled to take charge of their own lives during the War when most of the Southern men were away. That independence led to significant changes in gender relationships after the conflict. Mothers of Invention is an important work on a variety of historical topics: the Civil War, the old and new South, as well as women and gender roles.

I first picked up James Henry Hammond and the Old South nearly twenty years ago as I searched for dissertation information. This remains one of the absolute best sources on the Old South—the worldview of the large plantation owners, the master-slave relationship, and how the antebellum Southern ideology was crumbling as the Civil War approached.

Both of these books are worth reading. And I almost forgot, I actually assigned another of her works in a Civil War class I taught several years ago. Faust’s The Creation of Confederate Nationalism (LSU, 1990) is short book/long essay on the intellectual roots of Confederate identity. It’s a difficult read, but a concise and well-written introduction to a difficult intellectual topic.

Maybe soon, it will cease to be national news when a women becomes a university president. And I do think we are swiftly reaching that point. But this is Harvard, and Larry Summers—as much as I liked him as a Clinton economic advisor—seemed to be more of a divider than a uniter (not to mention his unfortunate comments regarding women in the sciences).

But we can’t let this milestone pass without some joy and celebration. It’s another step in remaking the society and workplace--and both of those institutions need alterations. And yes, it also enrages those right-wingers. As I have mentioned before in Books and Bait—I get giddy when something disturbs their cultural sensibilities--and we all know what they think of feminists.

When the announcement was initially reported by the Harvard Crimson, I immediately emailed my friend Katie, who took history classes with Dr. Faust at Penn. Katie is currently a local political activist, consultant, writer (she is hard at work on a novel), and radical feminist. I asked Katie if she had any comments about Faust and whether she thought her former professor would be tough enough to conquer the old boy’s network at Harvard. Katie, always good for a colorful quote, immediately responded with:

"SHE FUCKING ROCKS! She should do her lecture on Civil War weaponry if they doubt her toughness. I love her, I have a big crush on her.”

I trust Katie's judgement--and I think Harvard is in good hands. Let's keep tearing down those ceilings.

"Bad" President's Day

In order to properly celebrate President's Day 2007--I thought I would publish a list of the 5 worst.....and also the 5 best presidents. I know these lists are purely personal and don't mean much; but they are fun to make and they often start some fruitful discussions. So here are my choices:

5 Worst American Presidents

Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)--he did take a nice picture though.

George W. Bush (2001-2009)--and sinking fast.
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
others considered: Millard Fillmore, Ulysses S. Grant, Calvin Coolidge, William H. Taft

5 Best Presidents

Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)--my favorite Lincoln picture.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
George Washington (1789-1797)
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)--close call between TR and Jefferson
others considered: Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower

We Seek Apologies

When are these pro-war pricks going to apologize? I’m serious. Those of us on the antiwar left need to hear from some of our fellow citizens, specifically those who helped lead us into this Iraq quagmire. I truly believe people need to be held accountable for the support they gave to this administration.

And I don’t mean Bush, Cheney and those lying bastards—they will never apologize. I’m talking about your neighbor, friend, roommate, co-worker—we can’t let these folks off the hook so easily. If we do……if we don’t force them to reflect upon what they helped bring about, this is going to happen again and again. On the other hand, if we can compel them to at least question their support for the war, maybe they will think about it next time…..maybe.

So I urge all my fellow leftists to try and get at least one or two individuals to apologize for the Iraq War—and to also encourage them to think about the futility of war, death, violence, and all the other issues that come with it.

In order to help you out, I have drawn up a “cheat sheet” that you can use when talking to your Republican/conservative friends.

you (leftist): Hi Mary/Joe. How are you? I hope you are having a good day. How's the family? Remember when the Iraq War started--you supported it and I didn't. And while I am not trying to rub it in, I do think you ought to apologize in some way for the disastrous and fucked-up policies which you supported. It will make you feel better, and might make you think twice about supporting dumb-ass policies in the future. I would like to help. So why not apologize to me since I am one of those unpatriotic, dirty-hippies who was against the war from the beginning. And if you can’t think of quite the right words Mary/Joe, here are some of the specific things that you might apologize for:

Joe/Mary (urge them to start with this): I want to sincerely apologize for my support of the Iraq War. More specifically, I am sorry for some or all of the following actions:

-For calling my fellow citizens unpatriotic just because they were voicing their sincere beliefs against military action. I am sorry and now understand that they are just as patriotic as I am—maybe even more.

-For not questioning the lying bastards in the Bush White House. Questioning authority is one of the primary tenants of a democracy. I should always remember what the great journalist I.F. Stone used to say, “governments lie.”

-For not demanding clear evidence from my elected officials and leaders. It is now absolutely clear that: there were no WMD, and there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. I should have demanded evidence much earlier.

-For ever watching Fox.

-For not considering peace and negotiations as viable alternatives. I will keep those options in mind next time.

-For letting fear take over for simple logic. I now realize this is what Bush and the others in the military-industrial complex will always want me to do—and I fell for it. What a dumb fuck I am!

-For not understanding history. I guess I skipped those days when my teacher talked about America as an imperialistic power. I now know that all that “make the world safe for democracy” crap is a fairy tale and always has been.

-For buying into the cut-and-run rhetoric and all the other Bush-Rove sound bites. I should be ashamed of myself. I though Bush was a uniter, not a divider. Again, what a dumb fuck I am.

-For cheering when the United States drops bombs and other military hardware on innocent people from other nations. I am most ashamed of this and probably should apologize to the entire world.

-For buying into nationalism and other religious and cultural propaganda that American leaders use to divide us from people around the globe. I now realize that being an American, or a christian, or being white--doesn't give me any particular insights into what is best for others in the world.

Edie Sedgwick and America's Dull and Lifeless Culture

When I was kid, my friends and I collected baseball cards. Actually, collected is a misnomer. We bought baseball cards at Rusciolelli’s Grocery Store for a nickel a pack. We examined the cards, studied the statistics, and laughed at the physical flaws of the players (big ears, ugly teeth, and baldness). We traded them, put them in our bicycle spokes, and often just threw them away. One rich kid in town used to buy packs of cards just for the gum! We would ride our bikes down to the store’s trash area and try to dig out some of his discards.

Now, here is what we didn’t do in 1965—we didn’t spend any time looking up the value of the cards.....we didn’t have our parents drive us to shows so we could sell our cards for a profit.....we didn’t stash our cards in a safety deposit box in order to pay for our education.....we didn’t put the cards in little plastic folders so their value would increase. You know why? Because they were just baseball cards, and we were a bunch of kids simply trying to have fun.

And I think that is the primary difference between the mid-1960s (when I was a kid) and today. When I was 10-11 years old, I wasn’t thinking about my resume. I wasn’t seeking letters of recommendation, and I wasn't shopping around for a college, or a retirement plan. I didn't even think about my college major--imagine that? I wasn't worried about the future, I was more concerned about being a kid on that particular day.

But it isn’t just baseball cards that represent the life and culture of that time—I give you Edie Sedgwick. Sienna Miller portrays Edie in the current hit film, Factory Girl. Sedgwick was one of the Andy Warhol crowd in New York City during the 1960s. She made her initial mark on culture and society as one of the nation’s first supermodels. She then appeared in many of Warhol's films, served as his social escort, partied heavily, may or may not have had a steamy love affair with Bob Dylan, lived at the famous Chelsea Hotel…..and then died at the age of 28.

The first book about Edie Sedgwick was published in 1982 (Jean Stein's, Edie: American Girl). Since then, there have been several other books, various websites, and now, this feature film. Why the infatuation with someone who might have been the Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith of her generation? In fact, Caryn James’s New York Times review of 4 February 2007, even makes the Edie-Paris connection:

"The film and a mass of other Edie-ana — new books, Web sites, even a T-shirt with her image on it — all position Edie as Paris Hilton's symbolic grandmother, the original famous-for-being-famous girl… True enough. But that doesn’t explain why Edie is having another cultural moment, or how her slick Warholian fame has metamorphosed into a more complicated legend that speaks to the present."

What does explain it? Was she just a no-talent celebrity like Paris Hilton, or something more? I would make the case that Edie Sedgwick at least represented something more. She became famous in a time before everything was marketed. She was flawed, but real. In fact, few people in her time (nationally) even knew who she was. She could walk the streets of Manhattan with little or no fanfare. She wasn’t sold to the nation, she didn’t have a TV show to exhibit her talents (or lack of talent). There were no focus groups to help clean up her public image--tell her how she should act. She smoked in public, wore whatever she wanted, and was heavy into the drug scene. She was simply part of a small subculture of American society. And she had fun.

There is still much written about her—but one of the best short essays was recently penned by another Warhol actress, Jane Holzer—who, I think, truly captures the essence of Sedgwick and the cultural spirit of the times. Holzer writes:

"Edie Sedgwick emotionally represents and has come to symbolize something that young people believe is missing from their lives today: the pure authenticity and personal freedom of the '60s. These were the legendary "silver '60s," embodied by the edgy New York underground experience. It's easy to see why young people today are drawn to her. After all, they feel deprived of certain freedoms--sexual, emotional, experiential--and they're haunted by all the dangers and threats that engulf their daily lives. The smart ones know and resent how everything is marketed to them until it all feels the same. They see a world where nothing is spontaneous or authentic, and they yearn for a time when things were "real." Edie incarnates all that--the paradise lost, the Camelot. It was a simpler time. It was fun. None of us knew that anyone would become so famous or die so young. We were just out having a good time. Crazy, right?"

Crazy…..I don’t think so. People then were not necessarily reaching for fame; they were not strategizing for the future. I call that refreshing. But who could do that now? We have no culture today that is divorced from marketers, spin doctors, agents, Christian moralizers, and the mass media. Nothing is real or original. Kids can’t simply collect baseball cards for fun—they have to make a profit. Take up a hobby, you will ultimately need to enter a competition and win some kind of prize: you need to be a success. And most celebrities--at least once they become famous--are packaged and sold like soap. There are few original subcultures like Greenwich Village in the 1960s—it just can’t happen anymore.

In addition, we now live in a society where everyone and everything becomes a political wedge issue. The timid politicians, the rigid and hypocritical family value crowd, and nervous parents all kick and scream whenever there is a cultural phenomenon that might be original. The flags go up—are there drugs involved, do these people go to church on Sunday, and did one of them have an abortion? Let’s send out a flyer to our constituents. Let’s make this a political issue—our interest groups will benefit!

Face it--we live in a boring, materialistic culture with little or no originality. I miss the freshness, the sparkle, the surprises, and yes, the perversity….in spite of the drugs, sex, and those other so-called irresponsible lifestyles. There is something to be said for having fun. There is something to be said for spontaneity. Isn't that what culture is all about? Sadly, we have turned into a frightened and inflexible society. We can lecture, we can judge.....but few can have fun and enjoy.

Maybe it is odd that Edie Sedgwick has turned into a cultural icon--but what kinds of people should we admire and analyze? Politicians, business leaders, ministers? I prefer the alternative crowd--the artists, poets, writers, and other unconventional individuals who didn't care if society rewarded them or not. They weren't trying to cash in, or pad their resumes.

And yes, my friends and I simply threw our baseball cards away when we reached a certain age. But we didn’t care, we weren’t trying to get rich, nor were we trying to be responsible adults. But it was fun while it lasted.

Edie Nation

Edie Nation Blog

Chelsea Hotel Blog

Counter-Military Recruitment

This may be something you are not aware of.....but you should be. Twin Cities students are national leaders in activism against military recruitment. That's right! And we should not only be proud of their efforts--but we should also help them in any way we can.

Youth Against War and Racism (YAWR) was formed in 2004 and focuses on counter-recruitment, especially in high schools. Last November, YAWR (led by high-school students) successfully organized a student walkout and march in the Twin Cities that ended in front of the military recruiter's offices at the UM. The demonstration attracted over 2000 participants. Did our newspapers cover this event or were they worried about hurting the feelings of the troops?

Isn't it time we made a concerted effort to keep these vultures away from our high schools? This might be a first-step in the dismantlement of the imperialist, military machine in this country. Let's shut off their recruits--let's starve them of their cannon fodder.

The excellent website, Not In Our Name, spells out the clear lies being advanced by the military-industrial imperialist and reveals their insidious tactics:

"If you turn on MTV or BET you'll see the Go Army ads with the claim that if you join the military, you'll be able to travel the world, get nice uniforms, new friends, money for college, and a real purpose in life."

In addition, the funds being spent by the Pentagon are staggering--over $2.5 billion on recruitment. And to make matters worse, most of these recruits (and future front-line soldiers) are poor, minority kids.

In addition, Bush's No Child Let Behind law not only mandates that recruiters be allowed into high schools; but it also states that any school receiving federal funds is expected to turn over confidential information about its students to military recruiters.

Fortunately, there are many groups now being mobilized (good links at the end of this article) to contest the recruiters. But it's difficult to battle the money and power of the Pentagon. One of the strategies being utilized is to get counter-recruitment groups into the schools. If we can't keep the military out--we can at least get our side (the peace side) in!

One more critical political consideration: the military-industrial complex understands what an advantage it has recruiting poor kids with few economic opportunities. Those of us on the left need to keep this in mind. We must continue to work for better schools and more job opportunities for those who would be inclined to accept the Pentagon's imperialistic blood-money. We have to provide a reason to for these kids to "just say no" to the military recruiters.

What About A Poet in the Oval Office? by M.J. Workman

Another superb essay by M.J. Workman. Could he be correct--did this country, at one time, actually elect presidents who could read.....write.....and speak in full sentences? Makes you wonder why natural selection has been so cruel to that office the past few years.

The question teeters on absurdity, surely. Aren’t poets usually mystical-minded, bookish types with weak eyes or, maybe young girls under the age of seventeen? We want our presidents to be tough, decisive men or women, rough and ready to fight. (I don’t mean swaggering, smirking southern wannabes who find it mighty convenient to use their Pappy President’s influence to skip out of serving in a war when their time comes; but then send others to fight and die when they get their fannies on the president’s chair.)

Say what you will about Andrew Jackson’s massive insensitivity to Native or African Americans, he never shirked his duties during wartime. And in words eerily applicable to today, Old Hickory defeated Harvard-educated John Quincy Adams in 1828 with many of the old soldier’s fans chanting: “Adams can write/but Jackson can fight.”

That’s doggerel--good spin, but not poetry. Anyway, Adams was no poet.

But we’ve had two truly great presidents who were poets: Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Say what? Name a poem either man wrote. Neither ever called himself a poet. But each was. They thought and wrote and often spoke (even shy Jefferson, and Lincoln who rarely spoke in public) in a cadenced language. Candor also characterized Lincoln. When stumped by a tricky question, he said frankly, I don’t know the answer. Imagine hearing that today.

But their genius—and Jefferson and Lincoln were in the palm of genius—resulted in part because they were poets with a profound understanding of the heights and depths of language. John Adams told Jefferson to draft the Declaration of Independence in 1776 because of his “certain felicity of expression.” The result was imperishable poetry masquerading as prose, poetry that helps rule our nation.

Listen again to the opening lines of The Declaration of Independence. But put Jefferson’s words in the blank verse most of today’s celebrated poets prefer, and trust your ear:

"We hold these truths
to be self-evident,
That all men are created equal,
that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights,
that among these
are Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Happiness."

That’s poetry, piercing our hearts, souls, and brains.

Now listen to Lincoln, a truly superior stylist. In his First Inaugural the Rail Splitter summoned the nation to honor our past, ingrained in “the mystic chords of memory” and in “the better angels of our nature.” There was a poet speaking.

Lincoln wasn’t Jefferson’s equal intellectually (who was?) but he was a greater poet. The self-taught Lincoln, said one historian years ago, possessed “a profoundly emotional apprehension of experience.” As a result, his famous address at Gettysburg in 1863 and his Second Inaugural (only one single spaced typed page) are rightly considered among the greatest speeches of all time.

Want more proof? Read Garry Wills’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “Lincoln at Gettysburg” (1992). Lincoln’s classical rhetoric “proved” that the American Dream had not and would not die. At our best, we act on the poetry of 1776 and 1863. If natural or self-induced amnesia overtakes us, we’re doomed.

Take my advice, and re-read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. But read the words, and read them aloud, as Lincoln, the poet, scribbled them on the back of an envelope.

"Four score and seven years ago,
our fathers brought forth on this continent,
a new nation,
conceived in liberty
and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal."

Now turn the last paragraph, so rich in historical irony:

"The world will little note,
nor long remember,
what we do here,
but it can never forget
what they did here."

A few words later Lincoln soars to greatness as a prophetic poet:

"That we here highly resolve
that these dead
shall not have died in vain--
that this nation, under God
shall have a new birth of freedom—
and that government
of the people,
by the people,
for the people,
shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln’s “profound emotional apprehension of experience” was never more evident than in his short Inaugural address in 1864. The war continued. Rancor raged. The truly hateful called Lincoln a “baboon” and “Abraham Africanus.”

Yet the re-elected president was the epitome of decency and humanity. Again I cast Lincoln as a poet.

"Fondly do we hope—
fervently do we pray—
that this mighty scourge of war
may speedily pass away.
Yet, if God wills that it continue,"

[Lincoln continued]

‘the judgments of the Lord
are true
and righteous altogether.’”

M.J. Workman says it’s time for another poet in the Oval Office!
mjworkman39@yahoo.com

Buddy's Books and Bait.....the future

So I have been a blogger now for a month. When I started Buddy's Books and Bait, I had every intention of using it solely as a classroom teaching tool. I planned to utilize the blog to "communicate" with students--posting assignments, announcements, and other in-class information.

But I soon realized that I was having too much fun voicing my own political opinions. Plus, many of my beliefs are considered extremely "radical" by the higher-ups at my place of employment--and why invite that kind of controversy. Finally, I wouldn't be able to write fuck or use any other expletives if my students were using the blog. So I separated the blog from the teaching portion of my life. One issue solved!

Issue number two--what to do with the blog? If you are a Books and Bait reader, you know that I have included a hodgepodge of articles. There have been book reviews, poetry, political rants, and even commentary on foreign policy issues. While I understand there is no right or wrong way to construct a blog--I am inclined to be a bit more organized in purpose. I have found, to my delight, that Books and Bait has helped me find my political "voice"--and I will keep using it as my personal megaphone. But in the upcoming months, I am planning to push Books and Bait in a slightly different direction--or at least give it more focus.

There are already many excellent national, leftist bloggers. And while I remain interested in global and national affairs--I think this humble little blog of mine might be more useful if I concentrate on state and local affairs. There are a number of local, city, state, and even regional issues that need to be examined and discussed. And I don't just mean political matters--but even social and cultural issues in the Twin Cities. Let me offer a few examples of what you might see in the upcoming months on Buddy's Books and Bait:

-details of Minnesota legislative issues important to liberals and progressives

-examination of local problems like homelessness, teen pregnancy, domestic abuse
-book reviews by Doctor J and others....maybe more on Minnesota books and authors
-continuing columns on fiction and poetry by M.J. Workman
-restaurant reviews
-coverage of Twin Cities museum exhibits and historic site presentations
-film reviews (only high culture foreign films)

In addition, I plan to use this venue to practice what I might call quasi-journalism. It's one thing to sit here and write about the Bush administration or events in Europe. But writing about state and local affairs will allow me to actually "cover" those events and even interview local officials--something I hope to do.

So thanks for reading Books and Bait. And please contact me at any time with comments or suggestions.

Get Your Ass to the Altar

It gives me a thrill to piss off right-wingers. I aspire to do it each and every day. I try to imagine what they look and act like when they read our leftist tracts. First, they get all red-faced and angry. Then they start thinking about all those liberals they despise--Dirty Hippies, feminists, the French, homosexuals, the Clintons, atheists, and all those flag-burning, unpatriotic Commies who won't allow them to list the Ten Commandments on the backs of cereal boxes. And then, you know what, I think they start crying just a bit--maybe a low whimper. They sob when they reflect upon how things used to be (although we all know things were never actually that way). And when I imagine all this, I smile--hoping I have contributed in some small way to their general unhappiness.

The right-wingers are all in a panic now concerning marriage and its possible demise as an institution. An article last week reported that fewer than 50% of women are now married. More and more of them are living on their own. The neanderthals really came out of their caves for this one. How could this be--if women are living alone, well, this could signify the rapture. What next?

If you have read the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, you are familiar with konservative kolumnist Katherine Kersten. She was particularly livid about these marriage statistics. One of the most disturbing aspects of Kersten's response was that she focused on the evidence, the data used in the original New York Times article. Now read that last sentence again: konservative kolumnist Kersten questioning the validity of evidence. These are the same people who claimed, several years ago, to have found a link between abortion and breast cancer--even though no fucking evidence ever existed for that connection. But they never really cared about the evidence did they? These are people who still refuse to believe the 99.97% of all scientists who have said that global warming is a serious problem. Any yes, these people also believed Terri Schiavo was alive and kicking because Bill Frist saw some pink in her cheeks on a video recording. It's damned difficult to listen to arguments about weak evidence coming from people who want to take science out of our schools and replace it with intelligent design.

Shouldn't we all be happy that women no longer must depend on men. I see this as a positive development. Maybe women won't have to remain in abusive relationships any longer. Maybe women can select their own careers, raise children on their own, and make independent economic decisions. I haven't written anything yet that sounds like the rapture. Oh, but what about the poor men in this new world order--maybe they are no longer necessary. They don't appear to be needed economically......and maybe they are not even necessary for THAT anymore (must be 18 to see this link). Men are simply limp shells of what they used to be: providers, hunters, protectors, and breadwinners. Now they are just impotent NASCAR fans with low-paying jobs and little to contribute.

Seriously, here is where konservative kolumnist Kersten really misses the point. She and her fundamentalist brethren are always suggesting that single and poor women are better off economically when they are married. But is that because of marriage itself.....or is it because of the economic disadvantages that the American capitalist system has forced upon poor and single women? I think the latter. Why not a higher minimum wage for some of these women in low-income jobs? How about guaranteed health insurance.....and child care.....more family leave benefits....and some education loans and job training? How about free contraception for teens and young women instead of lectures and hassles? Maybe some of these benefits would allow single women even more independence.

Oh, but then fewer of them would be rushing to the altar. Face it, konservative kolumnist Kersten and her ilk care little about poor women, single women, or women's issues in general. What they care about is forcing some abstract notion of family values upon the rest of society. But it's clear that their values are worn-out, pseudo-Victorian, fundamentalist snake oil. If Kersten and others wish to help single and/or poor women, they will start looking at unfair economic policies and the evils of unfettered capitalism. And they would quit attempting to foist their tired and hypocritical morals on the rest of us.

dew (and I thank L.P. for contributing ideas via our discussions)

Book Review: Letter to a Christian Nation, submitted by Doctor J

Another fine book review by Doctor J. And I like his advice that, "you must buy this book. You must read it. Then read it again. Then give it away to someone who needs to read it...and ask them to do the same." If you are stimulated by this book and the topic--pick up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins--also a current best-seller.


In this short book—91 pages—author Sam Harris explains to American Christians that he does not accept their religious belief because of its lack of intellectual rigor. That is, he has no faith in religion because it cannot be touched, tested and verified. More importantly, Harris (above) warns of the danger Christianity poses to our society and the world. Of course there are many kinds of Christians—dozens of denominations and myriad levels of intensity and fundamentalism. Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006) invites everyone, Christian and otherwise, to read and talk about their ideas in the spirit of open and learned discourse. Herein lies the rub. There are Christians who won't read this work because they are forbidden to engage in open and learned discourse, much less have ideas. These are the most dogmatic creationists, those who believe the world was created only six thousand years ago and look forward to the time when it will be gloriously destroyed as a prelude to their Man-God's return to save all true believers and damn the rest to eternal suffering. These people won't read this book due to the fear instilled in them by those who claim to speak for their god—a vengeful Father-God who prohibits any opening of eyes and minds to any interpretation of reality other than its own. The rest of the Christians, and those of us in other categories—the more reasonable, the less frightened, the less hateful, the more open-minded ones—will read it, fortunately, and will consider its straightforward ideas regarding religion, belief, and reality. And when we have done so it is our charge to find a way to keep the fundamentalists from taking over this country and destroying it in the name of their god.

This may sound alarmist, but Harris cites public opinion surveys that show 53% of Americans are literal creationists who believe the Earth to have been created from dust and divinity about six thousand years ago. Fifty-three percent of anything is a big number so, yes, these people already shape our society and institutions and they are not shy about their agenda to dominate it entirely. The creationist agenda includes (but is not limited to) the destruction of science education, to be replaced with so-called intelligent design; the destruction of a woman's right to control her own body by gutting, then strangling, and finally killing Roe v Wade; the display of religious icons in public places (such as the Christian Ten Commandments in public schools and government buildings) to indoctrinate and threaten society at large and—you may wish to sit down for this—to hasten the end of the physical world so their beloved Man-God can return, give them their well-deserved heavenly splendor for being such good followers, and perpetually punish everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Sure, this sounds crazy. There's a good reason for that, but here's the really alarming part. These people vote en masse. Scarier still, they get elected or appointed to office themselves (G.W. Bush and John Ashcroft come quickly to mind) and bring this apocalyptic wet dream to the job with them. Fundamentalist Christians WANT THE WORLD TO END. They dream of it, they pray for it, they live for it. And they base all their belief in this end as a desirable one on a literal interpretation of a book.

These fundamentalists, THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS remember, believe a book written by dozens of authors over scores of years is the literal word of their god. You may have heard of it. It's called the Bible. This book, a collection of letters, sermons, essays, parables, warnings and more than a few quite unintelligible ramblings, has been edited and re-edited dozens of times, whole chapters banished and others added at intervals spanning centuries. It contradicts itself hundreds of times as a result. Yet we must live our lives according to its every word or we get no reward when the end we so desire arrives.

OK, says Harris, let's live by this book. God says, when one's child is "out of line" we must beat him with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23: 13-14). If he "talks back to us, we should kill him"(Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13 and Matthew 15:4-7). Can any of us honestly say we would be alive today if our parents had followed these edicts? Add to this that "we must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images…and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes." Which of us shall cast that first stone at the homosexual? The Christian political official who cheats on his spouse? The fundamentalist Wal-Mart employee who works on Sunday? The creationist schoolchild who pledges allegiance to the flag each day? What about the gay politician who leads the pledge of allegiance in a workplace on a Sunday campaign stop? Is there anyone more worthy of public execution? What about anyone who has ever masturbated? They are condemned to be killed by their communities as well. Let he who has not done that cast the first stone. Come on. I dare you. I thought so. Yet 53% of Americans profess to believe this and live their lives accordingly. Of course they tend to pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow literally. You can bet most don't kill their children even if it means their eternal damnation. You can also bet if you masturbate they'll cry out for yours.

That archaeology has proven the Sumerians discovered glue almost 7000 years ago—a thousand years before the Earth was created according to creationist belief—won’t dent the thought process of this majority, or their elected favorites. This is a profoundly disturbing reality. Stone-age technology and culture are well-documented on five continents. That's more than ten thousand years ago. Dinosaurs? The entire idea is either a secular, scientific, liberal humanist, Darwinist conspiracy or they were on the ark with two of everything else. And if you don't belief this you are denying god and banished from its heaven. Worse, you are delaying the great catastrophe that will bring the end to this universe and fucking up everyone else's rapture. Who do you think you are? Again, this is 53% of Americans. How does one rationally argue with another individual who is so deeply psychotic as to ignore verifiable reality because it denies his hopes of fire and brimstone hurled by a hateful god at people who disagree with them? How does one argue with a majority of his countrymen who are locked into this self- and other-destructive mentality?

In an effort to begin this dialogue I could ask questions, as Harris does, of the Ten Commandments (universal to all religions in tone, Christians are the only ones to have these handed down in stone), of Christianity's views regarding morality and atheism (Hitler was a proud Christian and is, presumably, in heaven today. As an atheist, I have no chance to go, a rather comforting thought, really. Who wants to spend eternity with Hitler?) and, especially, of Christianity's assault on science, reason, and logic, i.e. evolution. But that may discourage you from buying this book.

And you must buy this book. And you must read it. Then read it again. Then give it away to someone who needs to read it (and everyone needs to read it) and ask them to do the same. Yes, it's that important. No other developed nation on earth, says Harris, believes in a literal interpretation of a religious text to the extent Americans do with their Christian Bible. "Our country," he writes, "now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant. Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying." Literal Christians are a numerical majority and as such constitute the single most dangerous threat to our nation and the world today. It is the duty of all rational, thinking people to understand that threat. This book is the primer for that education.

In my world you are, of course, free to believe Harris' arguments or not, just as you are free to believe in literal creationism. In a creationist's world you are not free to consider anything but the literal word, contradictory and inhumane and hateful as it is. But you do owe it to yourself and to all of us to look at both sides. Then decide which world you want to live in. One world is controlled by people who will buy any story on faith, follow any rule out of fear, pay any tithe, deny any reality, hate anyone their magic book and its un-seeable, untouchable, unknowable god tells them to. The other is a world where ideas are shared, considered, debated, verified or rejected by observation and analysis, and ultimately respected. One world denies reality, the other investigates it. One world seeks death, the other life. The choice is an easy one for rational people.

Christianity, like all religions, was invented between 8000 and 6000 years ago, after human beings had adopted agriculture as a social and economic system. A steadier food supply, more permanent dwellings, and a rhythmic work schedule allowed far more free time than was available to their hunter-gatherer ancestors and this free time was used, in part, to develop a psychological relationship with nature. Part of that process was the invention of gods. This occurred in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas all, more or less, about the same time. Man invented God about two thousand years before creationists believe that God invented Man. These are traceable, testable and verifiable facts.

Poor Jesus Christ. He comes along and has his name attached to a generally decent set of ideas, thousands of years in the making, adding his own charge to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Then, over the next 2000 years, small-minded, power-mad, hateful people take that long history and positive message and turn it into bullshit that serves only to divide as it begs destruction for all who disagree with it. It almost makes me wish I was wrong. It makes me wish he was actually coming back. I'd love to see the look on his face when he sees what these people have done, and are doing, in his name. But, of course, he's not coming back. Lucky for them.

Reading Poetry by M.J. Workman

What a lovely essay by our fiction writer M.J. Workman. After digesting this post, I know many of you will be inspired to find some poetry to read. Or even better, to write something yourself and present it at a local open reading night. We all look forward to more poetry discussions from Mr. Workman.

The philosopher Nietzsche wrote a brilliant essay called “The Use and Abuse of History.” I haven’t read it in years. But I don’t have to—I can remember what he said about art and literature. Far too often, said Nietzsche (“for that was his name,” as a student of mine once said after mentioning Emerson in the first line of a paper) teachers and would-be shapers of thought inadvertently use art to kill art. They present Emerson or Shakespeare (for that was his name) or some other genius and proceed to demonstrate the “true” meaning of the poem or essay.

I can remember how mortifyingly dumb I felt in my first college English classes. I would read a poem, say, form an opinion of its meaning only to have the learned professor so explain the poem that I felt like a certified dunce. The subtext of the earnest teacher’s words were seared into my brain: the poet was a genius and I’m not. So get used to the idea that you had better never try to write poetry. Irony: of course the professor meant to be inspiring us to love literature and read it for the rest of our lives, the notion being that once we were taught the correct way to read one abstruse poem we would be able, on our loney, loney, to read and “understand” true art.

Now Nietzsche himself isn’t exactly hammock reading, to quote another one of my former students, but his point in “The Use and Abuse of History” is clear. By holding up masterpieces to untutored minds and deciphering them, the student is likely to walk away feeling like crap, knowing that poetry sucks, and that he or she could never create anything worthwhile, whether as a poet or composer or whatnot. So, don’t even think about it big boy. Have you considered dentistry? And it pays a lot more than poetry writing. So does plumbing.

But the irony is only half complete. Virtually no one reads poetry for pleasure—it’s “hard work,” to quote our Commander in Chief—but millions of scribblers, usually girls under the age of 17, write stuff that rhymes. No one, apparently, has told them that no one today who knows a lick about poetry obsesses much over rhyming. What used to be dismissed by some as “blank verse” has carried the day, much to the chagrin of some old fogies who once taught, “lit tra chure.”

To help me make my case I summon to the witness box none other than Billy Collins, America’s poet laureate a few years back. He writes in his Introduction to his readers in his influential anthology of contemporary verse, “Poetry 180: A Turning Back to Poetry” (2003).

“I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide

or press an ear against its hive.

I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out.

or walk inside the poem’s room
and feel the walls for a light switch.

I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author’s name on the shore.

But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with a rope
and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.”

There’s more, much more from the pen of the hugely talented and influential Mr. Collins. I promise to call on him for inspiration often and promise and to quote him and others in the future. So, for now (to borrow the late, great political commentator, Edward R. Murrow’s signature sign off) “Goodnight, and Good Luck.” M.J. Workman has other poets and some people you might not be accustomed to thinking of as poets up his sleeve whom he promises to discuss and quote in future columns. The Lord willing, as my mother would say.

mjworkman39@yahoo.com

On Fighting the System

I have been planning to write a post on the antiwar movement (or lack thereof) for some time now. My friend, and frequent Books and Bait contributor, Enrico Salvatore (Ratso) Rizzo even sent me several recently published articles on the topic (here and here). And on this past Saturday, as you probably all know, there was huge antiwar march in Washington D.C.

As I reflected further on this topic, however, broader questions and themes kept creeping into my mind. For the most part, the past few decades have been discouraging for our side. The left has gained little and our constituents have not done well either. My thoughts began to focus on questions of what we should be doing things differently. And of more importance, what is our mission (the left) and what can we hope to achieve in this skewed political system of ours?

Forget the immediate issues for just a moment. American society is and has always been dominated by an entrenched elite. Generally speaking, that elite is wealthy, white, and male (the patriarchy); heterosexual and Christian. And these folks want to hold onto their power--don't forget this for one minute. Then there are those of us who wish to dramatically change and/or alter this corrupt American system. From Daniel Shays, to the abolitionists, to the women's suffrage movement, to the Black Panthers....."leftists" have been trying to challenge the elites for hundreds of years. But have we made any progress?

Fighting these powerful interests is a 24/7, lifetime job. Yet, as difficult as it seems, the elites must always know we are out there. If we weren't, what would happen? Take a Jimmy Stewart/It's a Wonderful Life view at what the country would look like without us. There would be wars being waged constantly (which is actually pretty close to reality). Would there be money for social programs, I really doubt those greedy elitist bastards would fork over anything for pregnant teens or the homeless if they didn't have to. Would they pay a decent wage or would they just go where the cheapest labor was located (isn't that Globalization)? A national religion? Wiretaps, free speech, police-state......? You get the point.

These people are extremely ruthless. And every time we seem to make some progress, they make adjustments--adapting to our small gains. They are also experts at using their minions in the media to spread their propaganda: patriotism, nationalism, god, religion, and all that classless society crap.

So where are we--and where did this rant begin? It's easy to get discouraged about the Iraq War, it's still going on and more troops are being dispatched. The antiwar movement has not been as strong as we might have hoped, The rich are getting richer, and the poor are gaining little. And the fundamentalist wackos in South Dakota are proposing yet another anti-choice law. But we have to keep at 'em, every single, solitary day. We have to stand toe-to-toe with the system and demonstrate that we aren't going to quit, because that's exactly what the elites want. They think they can wear us down--keep us holed up at our desks with new consumer goods to make us happy. And every time we let our guard down, they solidify their power just a little bit more.

Read, write, blog, bitch, scream, think revolutionary thoughts, protest, question authority, boycott products, volunteer at a homeless shelter, talk to friends, yell, attend meeting, join organizations, take to the streets, give money, listen, speak, ask questions, reflect on the powerless, and get damned angry about those who have held the power in this country for much too long. And when one of their mindless foot soldiers laughs and suggests that your protest, boycott, or letter to the editor doesn't matter--think otherwise. It does matter--it matters to them.

I don't expect the system to change too much in the next 40-50 years (that would be my lifetime I hope). But I plan to keep trying while also being a general pain-in-the-ass to the power structure and all of its supporters. Howard Zinn (pictured below) was once asked how he maintains his positive attitude when things seem to be so bad in this country for progressives. Zinn said, you lose, you lose, you lose, and then you win! And you keep doing that over and over. Their side holds the power, we don't. We have to work that much harder to get what we want.

Some Reading Material on "Fighting the System"

C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Michael T. Klare, War Without End
Emma Goldman, Living My Life
Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival
anything by Howard Zinn or Jonathan Kozol

Impeachment

I want to thank my friend Harry Lime, who has a penchant for finding marvelous Internet information. Harry has been sending me some great items on two current topics of interest: impeachment, and Bush as a war criminal. Today, I would like to discuss the impeachment issue. Thanks Harry!

Most of us Democrats know that Bush will not be impeached. He deserves it! But the leaders in our party are still afraid of so many things--they would never try something this bold. They will wring their collective hands and talk about "reaching across the aisle" to work with the Republicans. They wouldn't want to make anyone mad. Besides, when the Republicans were in power, they were always 'reaching across the aisles" to work with Democrats.....right? Oh well, at least allow me the satisfaction of examining impeachment in the abstract.

Elizabeth Holtzman makes a strong argument for impeachment in a recent issue of The Nation. If you remember, Congresswomen Holtzman (D-NY) played a key role in the House impeachment proceedings against President Nixon. She run unsuccessfully for the U.S. senate in 1980. And had it not been for a pathetic third-party effort by Jacob Javits, Ms. Holtzman would probably have defeated Alfonse D'Amato--thus sparing us eighteen years of his clown-like antics.

In her lengthy essay, Holtzman (pictured at right) first lists some of the charges against Bush: his "scorn for our international treaty obligations," the torture scandals, and the obvious lies leading to the Iraq War. The Iraq lies and the subsequent chaos brought about by those policies seem to be enough to impeach. But according to Holtzman, there is more, writing that:

"But it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interest of national security to override our country's laws--that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate."

President Bush blatantly violated the law--a felony in this particular case. Does the "average American citizen" understand this--does he/she care? I sure hope so. When President Nixon did these same things, he also used national security as a justification. But it was clear then that Nixon was only after his domestic political opponents--those Dirty Hippies who were against his war. Those illegal wiretaps, however, did become part of the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

The Bush thugs and bullies have used a variety of illegal methods to hold on to their illegitimate power and conduct their activities. Holtzman offers us all a much-needed civics lesson:

"Ours is a government of limited power. We learn in elementary school the concept of checks and balances. Those checks do not vanish in wartime; the President's role as Commander in Chief does not swallow up Congress's powers or the Bill of Rights. ... As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently wrote, 'A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.'"

As I mentioned, I am not expecting this to happen. But we can still act! There are many groups now organized in support of impeachment--go to their web sites and read what they have to say. In addition, we can contact our elected representatives and demand that they at least investigate these abuses of power by the Bush criminals. We can be angry about what has taken place. In fact, we should all write to the White House and just tell the evil bastard to quit. You think he would do it if enough of us wrote? Holtzman ends her essay with this,

"President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy."

The following links can get you started:

Impeach For Peace

Impeach Bush Coalition

After Downing Street