Sad news from Omaha

Just a quick note to everyone who has seen this report of the shootings in a mall in Omaha. Eight dead. Five more wounded. Fortunately, my family and I are okay. There was a nerve wracking hour where I couldn't get ahold of my wife, but it turned out she had a lesson to teach after she was done teaching classes for the day, so she was still at work and not out Christmas shopping like I was worrying. The wife of a friend of mine was right outside Von Maur, the store where the shootings occurred, when it happened. Scary stuff.

I've written in the past about working a second job at Radioshack several years back. That store is in the same mall that the shootings happened in. Scary stuff.

My deepest sympathies go out to the families who are missing loved ones tonight. Our thoughts are with you.

Charts and gaffes

Look quick, folks, because this gem from the Associated Press's Liz Sidoti isn't going to stick around for long. Nonetheless, I think it throws a light on the current state of the media, national politics, and the intersection thereof:

DUBUQUE, Iowa - Mitt Romney loves statistics. The former venture capitalist pores over charts and grafs. He analyzes situations and data from every angle. It's little wonder, then, that as he campaigns for president, the Republican sometimes shows his wonkish side.

He pours over charts and "grafs." Indeed.

I suppose the only consolation here is that for once this is happening to someone who I have no intention on voting for, but damn. From the same article:

Romney's style contrasts with that of his top rival in Iowa.

Mike Huckabee is the easygoing ex-governor of Arkansas who charms his audiences with homespun stories of growing up in a family of modest means while sprinkling in broad policy stances under the themes of patriotism and core values. The former Southern Baptist minister tends not to dwell on the details of policy matters, choosing instead to tug on his audiences' heart strings.

Conversely, Romney's pitch is heavy on policy — and details.

Can we get any more glowing praise for not knowing jack shit about policies? Because that is basically what the criticism is here. Sidoti seems to be saying, "Romney seems to know a lot about the job he is after, and I hate how stupid that makes me feel in comparison." This is the same kind of bullshit peddled about Gore that got Dubya elected the first time around.

You can find a screenshot here in case they've fixed the article.

Greenwald on Ron Paul

Verbatim Glenn Greenwald:

I'm really uncomfortable with judging someone by the support they attract.

Wow. Really? That's a pretty major philosophical difference between him and me. In the very least it's a overly general principle that doesn't hold up well in practice.

Greenwald is responding to flak he's taking for a couple posts he has written about Ron Paul. His stance seems to be that he respects for Paul for being a principled conservative.

For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals.

Greenwald makes a good case that Paul believes in his principles. For what it's worth, I think Greenwald is right and Paul probably does really believe in the principles he espouses. But c'mon, just how much credit am I supposed to give a guy for doing what he believes is right? Shouldn't that be the baseline expectation? This strikes me as the same thing as congratulating a guy on helping his wife out with the housework. Perhaps most men don't, but we really shouldn't flip our lids when we find a guy who who takes out the trash every once in awhile. Really, that should be the baseline expectation. Glenn Greenwald is falling all over himself to point out how principled Ron Paul is without really considering for a moment just what Paul intends to accomplish with those principles.

Actually, that seems to be another problem that Greenwald has. He doesn't actually believe that Ron Paul is really as extreme as all that:

Part of the dynamic of an unconventional candidacy is that it can become a repository for a whole array of disparate, unrelated groups. The lack of ideological familiarity enables many people with unconventional (even extremist or bizarre) political views to read into those candidacies whatever they want to see -- even if it isn't really there -- and to use the candidate as a proxy for their otherwise ignored and stigmatized causes. That was true to some degree for Dean, and is probably true to a much larger extent with Paul.

As someone who grew up chest-deep in far right wing conspiracy theories, I'm pretty damn good at decoding their language. It frankly scares me Greenwald, as obviously smart and well read as he is, can't see it, but perhaps my experiences give me an edge. I actually met the Montana freemen and spent a few days with them. I shook hands with Bo Gritz. I knew Ron Greisacker. Though I've been thankfully far away from that scene for many years now, I know it when I see it, and what Dave at Orcinus reports is exactly in line with how it operates.

But if you run through the broad array of kooky theories about the federal government promoted on the far right, you can find any number of Ron Paul's positions -- particularly regarding the gold standard, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the United Nations -- floating about there. Notably, Paul also played a significant role in Congress' ongoing failure to confront the growing problem of conspiracy-driven tax protests by diverting the blame to the IRS itself.

But that's who Ron Paul is -- a "constitutionalist" who deals in conspiracy theories and extremist anti-government beliefs. It's who he always has been, and who he is now. It isn't just an accident that Paul very recently spoke to a group with troubling racial ties, or that he attended a Patriot Network banquet in his honor in 2004, or that he gave an interview to a conspiracist magazine the same year. Hell, he's been operating within those same circles since 1985.

Absent in those quotes, but mentioned elsewhere in Dave's post, are references to the New World Order, the Trilateral Commission, and the European Currency Unit. To anyone who has spent some time in the company of conspiracy theorists, the language is unmistakable.

And yet perhaps it shouldn't surprise me that a lot of people don't see it. That's the thing about these conspiracy theorists. They don't come right out and say "I hate black people and Mexicans." At least, most of them don't. They tend to be really nice people. My grandpa was one, and if you'd read his letters to the editors ranting angrily about the Jewish Conspiracy, well, you'd be shocked at how many people loved the man for his deeply caring and generous nature. But just because he didn't call himself a bigot doesn't mean he wasn't one. The same goes for Ron Paul. Just because he's a True Believer doesn't make his policies somehow more admirable.

I suspect that Glenn Greenwald has trouble with the conspiracy theorists because the things they say can almost make sense when taken individually. Smaller federal sphere of influence in favor of states' rights? It sounds like something that reasonable people might disagree about. Ending gun control? Merely an extreme version of a popular idea. Shuttering the U.N.? People have been talking about this for years. Compounding the problem is that the worldview of a conspiracy theorist is quite a bit different than ours. Though we on the left often say they talk in code, the reality is they've been using these phrases so long that they have actually come to believe their own rationalizations. States' rights as an end is what many of these people actually believe in. They don't think of it as a means. If you ask them which rights they think the states would better represent, you'll get a litany of grievances committed by the federal government, and most of it vague. What you won't hear is anything about white power.

Given the language they use and the fact that they believe their own bullshit, I can see why someone who hasn't been around it a lot might have trouble with it. But that doesn't change the fact that the origin of these ideas came from racist and sexist ideas, and that those ideas are still at the core of the movement.

The real problem comes when putting all the conspiracy theorist ideas together in a big picture. These are people who really, truly believe that things were Better Back Then, that there was a time when the country was on the right track, but now it isn't and everything has been ruined. They want to dial back the clock and recapture the good ol' days. They don't use the words "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic," at least not unless they are making fun of people who are being too "P.C." No, they just think of these as the natural order of things. And restoring that natural order is exactly what their platform is intended to do.

Margo Howard does polyamory

Dear Margo probably isn't the first place a progressive thinks to turn to for advice. Or maybe it is; truth be told, it isn't exactly the kind of thing I keep in my RSS reader and I normally remain blissfully unaware of the world of bite-sized expostulation. But it was featured in the Most Popular section at Yahoo News, and since that is something I keep in my RSS reader, it so happened that an article titled Kind of Like Unofficial Polygamy made its way across my eyeballs. I'm a sucker for anything that hints at subverting the dominant monogamy paradigm, so naturally I had to read it. I must admit, I tend to shy away from the word "polygamy," but apparently so does Margo:

DEAR MARGO: I am a very happily married woman with a problem: well-intentioned friends and family. My husband and I are polyamorous and not ashamed of it. We have wonderful girlfriends who are special and a part of our family. The problem is that people assume we are on the verge of divorce, etc. Other than an indelicate "Butt out," is there any way to get them to see that we are really happy and stable? We've been married for five years.
--- HAPPILY POLY

(For square readers like me who might need a trip to the dictionary, I will save you some time. "Polyamorous" is the name for multiple sexual relationships within marriage -- in this case involving both spouses.)

DEAR HAP: You may not be ashamed of it, but you have to know that this arrangement would strike most people as being somewhere between odd and morally wrong, it being quite far from the norm. I am not sure why you felt the need to breeze it around that you and your husband have "wonderful girlfriends."

Because you have, however, essentially invited people to "butt in," you are a little bit stuck in terms of asking them to butt out. I guess the only way to prove yourselves happy and stable is for you two to continue to thrive with your, uh, wonderful girlfriends.
--- MARGO, BEWILDEREDLY

Hrm. Yeah. I mean, I have no idea why she would feel the need to talk about her life with her friends and family either. Clearly if she and her husband choose to live their lives differently than other people, they should at least have the decency to hide it from everyone. But no, HAP dares exit the closet, brazenly wreaking havoc on the normative model of monogamy. How dare she flaunt her happiness so? How dare she attempt to live her life free from jealousy? Thank the Christian god that HAP has friends who know how to put her in her place. And thank you, too, Margo, for reminding everyone of the most venerable of all American values: that it is shameful to be different.

I wonder whether Margo would give the same advice to a gay couple who was having trouble getting their family to stop telling them that they were living in sin. "You may not be ashamed of it, but you have to know that a lot of people find this arrangement morally wrong. You probably should've stayed in the closet. But since you chose to come out, you should expect to take a lot of flak. In fact, you probably deserve it. Fag." Since I don't read her column often, I don't really know. Perhaps Margo would say these things, or at least something very similar. Though surely if she did, it wouldn't be nearly so direct -- my guess is she'd use some well placed quotation marks to seed doubt as to whether the any gay relationship could really be so wonderful. Or maybe she'd opt for a few verbal land mines such as um or uhhh, as in "your, uh, wonderful boyfriend." Yeah. Right. *wink* *nudge* I bet he's real wonderful, right guys?

I've always been captivated by this kind of column. When I was ten, I read them avidly, and nodded wisely at the sage advice dispensed so succinctly. I grew up, and eventually I realized that most situations in the real world are never quite so simple. But for that very reason I never quite lost my fascination with the Ann Landers-esqe advice columns. I've always wondered what it is their authors get out of them. Surely Margo knows that she isn't helping the individual who is writing in. The paper doesn't get printed until well after the syndicate's deadline. In my younger days I resolved this apparent dilemma by imagining that Ann Landers must have also replied individually to the original supplicant. It bothered me to think that there were people so desperate for help that they were writing to a stranger for advice. Such a person must be at the end of their rope; I imagined them waiting weeks for a reply. It made me feel better to think that Ms. Landers would do everything in her power to hasten her answer back to them.

As an adult, I understand that columnists like Margo know full well that the person with the problem is almost beside the point. One of the keys to effective writing is to write to your audience, and Margo is writing to the vast number of readers of her syndicated column. Margo answers as the voice of our society. The point isn't to help an individual with their problem, but rather to reaffirm to the vast readership what kinds of things are -- and more importantly, are not -- acceptable behavior to our culture. In this case Margo makes it pretty clear. Polyamory is "unofficial polygamy," and polygamy is odd at best and probably immoral.

I find it fascinating that Margo felt the need to spell it out to everyone that 'polyamory' is just another word for 'polygamy.' Never mind that it isn't -- there are subtle distinctions that are important to the polyamorous community. 'Polyamory' means 'many loves,' and to them the emotional attachment is the difference. The terms "nonmonogamy," "open relationship," and "polygamy" are all commonly understood to mean relationships in which both partners are free to have sex with other people. But for a lot of these relationships, it is against the rules for either partner to forge a deep emotional bond with another person. Polyamory is different. Such bonds are permitted and even expected. But Margo chooses to ignore the finer points and focus instead on the sexual aspect of these relationships. She doesn't let HAP define the terms of her own relationship. Polyamory, the headline makes clear, is unofficial polygamy -- a word loaded with negative associations. Its very mention conjures up images of cult-ish Mormons marrying off preteen girls to men with multiple wives. This is why it is so important not to allow HAP to get away with calling her relationship 'polyamorous.' By re-framing the narrative as polygamy, Margo reinforces in the collective conscience of our cultural the idea that any kind of sex with multiple partners inside a marriage is immoral.

Once you understand how polyamorous people approach their relationships, it isn't so hard to understand why HAP has chosen to share with her friends and family that she and her husband have girlfriends. And even if you never comprehend polyamory, just a tiny bit of empathy goes a long way. If I were the cultural gatekeeper penning the reply, I might have written this:

DEAR HAP: You may not be ashamed of it, but you have to know that your arrangement with your husband is one that most people don't come across every day. It may take your friends awhile to understand that although your marriage is different than theirs, it is a positive force in your life. In the mean time, try explaining to your friends that you and your husband are doing fine. Tell them that if the situation ever changes, you'll be sure to let them know. You'll be politely sending the message that their friendship means a lot to you, but they have nothing to worry about.
--CHARLIE, SUPPORTIVELY

Yaaaaawn .... what time is it? Wha... ? Did I oversleep or something? Shit.

So uh ... It's been two years and um... I'm thinking about doing this "blogging" thing again.

I really thought I was over it, you know? That I was a better man for having blogged, but that I'd had my say and done my part, and all without getting fired from my day job to boot. But see, lately I've been hearing The Voice again. I'm sure most bloggers probably recognize what I mean. It's how we perceive the world. Something interesting happens, or maybe something not-so-interesting, and The Voice automatically starts up in the back of your mind, framing a blog post. You hear The Voice write your introduction and you think Oooh, that's good. And then: I see how I could close the post strongly, and I could tie in to that other topic. But the transition is going to be tricky. And, Is that enough content? Gonna be a short post today. And when you're really crazy, you start thinking about how you already wrote two fluff posts this week, and damn it, your ten readers aren't going to give a shit about this, they want content baby, but where to find it? I ask you, where to find the damn content? And everyone else already said it better than I did, and I don't feel like writing today but *weeps* must ... post ... must ... write ...

And then somehow you manage to finish the post, even though The Voice is a fairweather friend who tends to wonder off right as you get to that tricky transition part. And what's next? Why, now it's time to find another idea for a post, of course! Because if there's one thing worse than having the entire world framed viewed through the lense of how you might possibly write about it later, it's feeding the beast that is your blog.

But I dunno, I dunno... It's been years since I had my fix, which is approximately infinity in blog-years, so I might have a thing or two that I want to talk about after all. A few things have changed here. I've had some experiences I might want to share. And also, it's getting nigh on election time, and that's always fun. So I dunno.

I might bring this thing back after all. See if I can shake the dust off the ol' text editor. See how long I can keep it going. Try to rekindle my feminism, which never really went away, but damn it, it's so easy to slip back into bad habits when you aren't constantly analyzing yourself and the world around you.

Okay, so here's the deal I'm gonna try to make myself: I might write a post every once in awhile. If I have something to say. When I feel like it. And if I don't, I'm not going to feel guilty about it. Did you hear that, My Guilty Conscience?! Neener neener neener! You can just fuck off, Guilty Conscience, okay? Okay. Okay.

Okay.

This feels pretty cool. I think I could get used to this. Again.

Happy Birthday Evan!

Today was Evan's fifth birthday. Now I have a five year old. It sounds crazy to say it, but it's true. He's going to be going to kindergarten this year -- I can't say that without feeling both immense pride and trepidation.

Notice the strategy of grouping the candles. He certainly understands how to stack the odds in his favor.

This is the very first time he has ever put together a Lego set by himself. I had to leave the room because I just couldn't keep my big mouth from offering advice that he simply didn't need. Fortunately, Caren was there with the camera to document the process. He is very proud of this car. Also, you can't see it in these pictures, but he let his sister help open his presents.

It's the Red Ranger, need I say more? Yes? He's the Red Ranger from Power Rangers: Mystic Forces, because he has a cape. If he didn't have a cape, he'd be the Red Ranger from Power Rangers: Space Police Division. Yes, I know these things now*.

Happy birthday, Evan. I love you.

____________
* Actually, I thought it was "Special Police Division," but Caren has corrected me. Should I be ashamed or relieved?

With friends like these, who needs enemas?

Exhibit A. This Reuters article about a group of pedophiles in the Netherlands who are forming their own political party. I wish I had the energy to be outraged, but frankly I'm having trouble getting worked up over it. I'm quite disgusted with, you know, pedophiles. But insofar as a group of people I strongly disagree with forming their own political party goes, I'm finding it hard to care much when we can be pretty darn sure their group is going to be too small to make any significant difference. I mean, seriously, let's see where they get running on a platform of pedophilia. If anything, I would expect the outrage that will inevitably ensue to hurt the pedophiles.

So what does make me mad? Enter...

Exhibit B. This quote from the same article:

The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.

Pardon me while I do a double take. Since when have liberals ever been supporters of sexual assault? In what world does gay marriage have anything to do with legalized prostitution?

Let's be clear. This isn't an opinion piece. This article is presented as an though it were an informative piece about an odd political party in the Netherlands. Unwary readers will be under the impression that it is unbiased. But make no mistake, this is a conservative piece. "Soft on drugs," indeed. You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

Where's the so-called liberal media when we need it?