Speaking of Cement

They all want to say it, but they know how it would sound. So they have to find someone willing to say it out loud, to act as the lightning rod, to make the statement that, if enough people buy into it, would cut a strong leg out from under their opposition.

Enter Ann Coulter, who vomits invective with no hint of humanity and no concern for truth. Those for whom she speaks make noises like they are aghast – simply shocked! – that anyone would say things like that about those who have lost loved ones. Secretly, they are grateful to her for saying it. They know it’s not true, but that is irrelevant; they hope enough people will find in the statement something to grab onto, something to feed their hatred, to justify the fact that they resent so much that the widows are, irrefutably, right.

It’s been hard – really hard – to remain loyal to Bush lately without seeming untethered from reality. Oh, if only someone would throw them just a morsel of righteousness to restore their mindless fealty to their clueless leader. Doubt just kills them; they can’t stand uncertainty or complexity. They must have simple talking points and clear parameters or their little lives just come all unglued. They want to be loyal to Bush, to be so sure that they voted for the right guy. But there are the widows.

Oh yes, we must not demonize widows, we cannot without looking, to most of the world, like unfeeling monsters. It would be like kicking bunnies. They are at least rational enough to get that. But they have Coulter, who sells books to her minions with exactly that kind of venom. They have Coulter, who gives them license to beat up on widows and orphans.

The widows do, of course, have the ultimate right to ask why their husbands died. They have the right to demand an investigation. And if the investigation leads them to think that it was the policies of the White House, the incompetence, if not complicity, that caused their husbands’ deaths, they would be disloyal to the memory of their husbands to not speak out. Coulter says that doing so is “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.” How moronic.

She is right in one aspect, however; the widows are a tough act to beat. Their husbands are, after all, dead. They now must face the task of raising children alone, while leading the effort to uncover the roots of our national tragedy. What an awful burden on these women. It is hard for anyone to not feel sympathy for someone in that circumstance (well, almost anyone). The widows are every bit the sympathetic figures that Coulter complains they are. She finds it somehow wrong that when the point is made that something the White House did – or didn’t do – caused terrible tragedy, the point is made by someone who actually suffered great loss in the tragedy. “No fair,” she cries, “that they use their status as widows, their grief, the fact that they lost a husband, to make a political point, while keeping anyone from responding.” She calls it the liberal “Doctrine of Infallibility.” Does she really not see the connection between the fact that someone has lost someone and their desire to speak out against the cause?  

But the fact is they did not, despite her claims to the contrary, “inject themselves” into politics. They were thrown – slammed – into politics. They did not ask for their role; it was thrust upon them. Their husbands are dead – and their deaths were due to the incompetence of the bunch that occupies (stole) the White House. Yes, the widows of 9/11, the Cindy Sheehans who lost children to Bush’s pointless war, the veterans who lost limbs and sanity and families…it would be hard to look at them and not feel sympathy and understand that if anyone has gained a right to demand answers, they have. No wonder the Ann Coulters of the world find them so threatening.

So much has been going on, I hardly know where to focus. I suppose I should focus on the most important thing, it looks like the Bush administration is imploding. I’m swinging almost hourly between giddy exhilaration at the spectacle and morbid dread of how much more damage will be inflicted on my poor country before this nightmare plays itself out and we can begin the recovery process.

It is so hard to wish ill on my own country, but the past five years, ever since Bush was first appointed to the presidency, I’ve wanted something to happen just bad enough that the populace would wake from their media-induced coma and be forced to recognize the devastation that Bush and his cohorts have wrought on us, beginning with that first stolen election.

It is too bad it could not have happened before so much damage was done, before 9/11, before so many soldiers and Iraqi civilians died, before Abu Ghraib, before Valerie Plame-Wilson’s CIA career was destroyed, before environmental laws hard won over thirty years were blown away like so much dust and our national resources, our children’s legacy, wrapped up and handed to oil and mining industries, before we borrowed our way into crushing debt that our children will spend their lives repaying, before the rest of the world, even old friends, grew to hate us, before we became the laughing stock of the world.

I’m especially disgusted with the mainstream media. They could have done their jobs, asked the questions and demanded answers and hung on like pit bulls if that’s what it took to tear the truth from those who thought they had a right to hide the workings of our government from us. If they had done that, we would never have found ourselves in the place we are now. Instead, they’ve spent the last half decade licking the boots of the bastards in the White House, grateful for the daily press briefings that reveal nothing of the truth but save them from having to actually get out there and do any kind of investigative journalism. It would have been better if they had all just gone home and said nothing; no information would have been less destructive than the lies we were offered. Enough people believed those lies that it is now that much harder to get them to admit being deceived.

Now the press can’t ignore the flashing red facts that daily come tumbling out of every corner of the world, so they’ve started reporting things that those alternative media folks, the bloggers, the activist groups, the environmental guardians, the judicial watchdogs, the people that all along cared enough about this country to challenge the fake news, to sniff it suspiciously while the mainstream media just lapped it off the floor, have been reporting, have been shouting, for five long years. Yes, they are finally beginning to get those stories out into the mainstream media, pretending it is all new, like it all just happened this past week. So proud of themselves; they feel just like real journalists. They are trying to be careful to not reveal in the process that they were apathetic at best, complicit at worst, and that curtails how much they are even now willing to say. But it is a start. It is good to see them doing this because it will finally force these stories into the consciousness of those who rely on Fox for their “news,” but it sure is irritating to see them taking credit and acting all journalistic about it. I am glad they finally got around to saying something true, but I will never trust them again.

I got a call from Mike a few evenings ago. His girlfriend, Ty, wanted to take a free self-defense class being offered at Arizona State University, but didn’t want to do it alone. He figured I might want to go with her. So on Saturday morning, I dragged myself out of my cozy bed and muttered my way downstairs to set the teakettle to boiling, in a vain attempt to convince my brain that it was really later than it knew it was. A face wash, toothbrush, pony tail, tank top, shorts and flip-flops later I was headed to Tempe where I would meet Mike and Ty in the parking lot of a local restaurant so we could set out together to find the right building at the college. Then Mike took off to go run errands while I parked my truck and Ty went upstairs to check in.

The sign-in sheets were disclaimer notices. I signed in, meaning I agreed to not hold anyone there responsible in the event that I should break a bone, or suffer disability or death while participating in the class, and affirming that I am in decent enough physical shape to endure whatever tortures they were about to inflict. I had to make a guess about that and figured, “Hey, in how bad a shape could I be?” So I signed away life and limb, but they gave us pizza, so I judged it a fair exchange.

The preamble to the actual self-defense training was a presentation by a young woman who looked every bit the beauty pageant contestant she revealed herself to be; a slim, pretty, poised and resilient college student who told us about the evening she came back to her apartment, took a shower and was raped by an intruder who had cut through the window screen and forced open a locked window and who still has not been caught. Okay, I realize we are here for the purpose of preparing for just such a confrontation. I’ve had my pizza and I am awake now and attentive. And so we herd into the other room.

The class was held in a large room, the floor covered with wrestling mats. There were 5 or 6 groups, each working with two large, well-padded cops and a couple of female cops moving around doing demos with the main instructor in the middle of the room and observing and giving instruction to the groups. Most of the participants were young women, teenagers there with a mother or a couple of friends, twenty-somethings who had come in pairs. There were about 70 in all.

While in our group of about 10 there were two other women probably in their 40’s, I was obviously the oldest one there. The first technique we practiced was striking not with your fist, but with the heel of the hand, first the lead hand (not your dominant hand) that strikes lightly to center your aim, and then quickly with your dominant hand that strikes hard at the same spot. Those who went first seemed to me curiously shy about hitting, like they were afraid to use force, or giggly about the prospect. I was about in the middle of the line waiting around the perimeter to go onto the mat to try it, so about 5 had gone before.

Apparently, our padded officer wasn’t expecting too much from the old gal, because when I hit him a couple of quick ones, he pulled his head back and opened his eyes wide with a surprised look on his face and said, “Whoa, you’ve done this before! You’ve got kids!” (not sure how that’s connected, but he apparently believes it is somehow; he said the same thing a couple more times later after I’d struck a particularly cruel blow). Apparently, I’m pretty good at this stuff. I think as we age we become less tentative about enforcing our own power, perhaps seeing each opportunity as possibly our last chance to confirm to ourselves that we’ve still “got it.” Those who at the start were hesitant seemed to grow bolder with every strike they landed. It was somehow reassuring to watch little girls becoming strong.

I am pleased to report that I did not suffer any untoward damage. I do have a swollen, light purple area just below and toward the inside of my left knee. I actually was pleased to see it swelling up and discoloring after the class; it’s sort of my confirmation that I did not hold back, that I took seriously the purpose for which we had gathered that morning. It’s my proof that if I am ever confronted with the decision, I will not be too afraid of being hurt that I will choose not to fight. I want to remember that feeling of knowing I might come out with a few scrapes, but I will be stronger for it. Self-defense class as metaphor for life? Well, yeah, in a way, life is like that.

The class was really worth taking and I signed up to receive information on future classes. This one was a compressed 4-hour class; usually they are 8 hours. I’ve got a few friends and my mom who want to go with Ty and me next time.

My nightmare scenario has come true. Rehnquist died and Bush, the Supreme Idiot of the Land, gets to nominate TWO Supreme Court Justices, including Chief Justice. This almost makes me believe in gods; pure, random chance could not possibly be this cruel. I know it was foolish; he was, after all, a very sick, quite old man, but I was so hoping… just a few more years. My newest dream is that O’Connor will withdraw her resignation (not gonna happen, I know, but we can dream). So what to do about the hand we’ve been dealt.

I get a couple of email action alerts each day from various organizations asking me to write to my senators opposing Bush’s nominee, John Roberts, for Supreme Court Justice. The problem is that I’m not sure we can expect anything better from the Little Weasel and I don’t know enough about Roberts to voice opposition. I mean, I know what NARAL tells me, and I know what Earth Justice tells me and I know what HRC tells me, but I also heard that he worked pro bono on a civil rights case for a GLBT organization. I don’t trust Bush, not the tiniest bit, and the fact that he nominated Roberts is actually enough for me to oppose him. I just think it would be self defeating to seem like I would automatically oppose anyone he nominated. I would, but I don’t think it’s good to let them know that. Hence, I finally sent a letter, not opposing, just asking my senators (both Republicans, one a real Republican Party lap dog) to be careful and thorough when they debate the nomination. I hope if there is anything wrong with this guy they will be tenacious enough to find it and honest enough to vote him down.

September 6, 2005
sent email via Act for Change

I am writing to request that you take the time to ask some important questions when debating the nomination of John Roberts as Supreme Court Chief Justice.

I don’t know yet how I feel about him. On the surface, he seems bright and personable and like he may be a good choice, but there are some things I find disturbing and I hope you won’t allow him your vote until those things have been fully investigated.

If nothing else, the fact that the White House is refusing to hand over all his papers should at least be a big red flag. I don’t trust the secrecy of this administration in general, and this is too important for them to be hiding things from the American people.

Also, it is my understanding that as Roberts was deliberating the Hamdan case in the D.C. Court of Appeals, a case in which President Bush was one of the defendants, he was also meeting secretly with Bush for the purpose of interviewing for the job of Supreme Court Justice. If that’s true, it’s pretty troubling, don’t you think? Should he not have recused himself from that case? Is there a reason why he didn’t?

The other thing I find troubling is his attitude toward issues of personal freedoms. His statement about a “so-called right to privacy” makes me wonder about how far he’d be willing to go to divest the American people of the “so-called” rights that most of us do not hold so lightly.

His stance on environmental issues should be examined closely. Bush has done enough damage in that area already.

You might also want to check out what he has to say about his membership in the Federalist Society and why he couldn’t seem to remember it until he couldn’t hide it.

I hope you are willing to ask those questions and demand that he answer them fully and honestly before you would consider confirming him. I ask that you stringently examine Roberts before making your decision about his nomination to the Supreme Court.

I trust you take seriously the grave responsibility that falls to you in this matter. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will hold great sway in determining the course of this nation for many years to come. The person who holds that position should be beyond reproach ethically and should never put his or her personal interests above those of this country and its citizens.

This is your job. Please don’t give President Bush a blank check on this. The last time Congress did that, he got us in one hell of a mess. Use any available means, including the use of a filibuster if necessary, to ensure that if Roberts is confirmed, it is because he really should be, not because you didn’t do your job. It will be my children and my grandchildren who will have to live with the consequences of your actions.

Please let me know your views on this matter as soon as possible.

Before 9/11,

He ignored the warnings, then

He lied about the intelligence, so we

Attacked the wrong country, and

Screwed that up big time, and

Spent all the money on an unnecessary war, so

He cut funds for levee construction in Louisiana, while

Denying the existence of global warming, which

Spawned a hurricane, which

Destroyed New Orleans, and so…

He went … golfing … and

Played a guitar … and

Promoted his drug plan in El Mirage, and

When people started to wonder why he didn’t care, he

Walked down a Mississippi street swept clean of debris and

Hugged two African American girls and

Looked oh, so presidential in front of the

Grounded relief helicopters while he

Went on TV to advise people who have no TVs to listen to

Rescue workers that weren’t there because he had

Decimated FEMA and to

Remind those who had lost everything that everything is gonna be just fine

Just like he did

After 9/11

– Marlena Machol

John McCain has declared himself in favor of the CAP initiative, the one that seeks to change Arizona’s constitution to define marriage in a way that would deny it to same sex couples. Here’s the letter I sent him:

August 30, 2005
Sent email via AHRF action alert

Dear Senator McCain- I am the mother of a gay son and I was mad as hell to hear that you support the CAP initiative. I’ve never heard a reason for preventing same sex marriage that was not based on religious belief. I know many religions are opposed to same sex marriage, but many are not, and in any case, this is not supposed to be a theocracy, so I have three questions:

1) How is this not favoring one religion over another?

2) Are you supporting writing our laws to conform to particular religious beliefs, or do you find a reason for doing this that is not based on religion?

3) If you believe there is a secular reason for passing this law, what is that reason?

I would appreciate an answer to those questions.

It will be interesting to see how he tries to defend himself. I’m really disappointed in him. McCain used to be one of the few Republicans for whom I would have considered voting. I thought he was able to stand against the tide and confront his own party on issues with which he disagreed. If that’s true then he really does hold the ugliness of discrimination in his own heart; if it’s not, then either I misjudged him or he has changed. Whatever the correct assumption, I hold no belief that there is any humanity in the Republican party at all. I almost wish there was a hell just so they’d all get justice in the end.

In the debate over Darwinian Evolution vs. “Intelligent Design,” one thing that strikes me is that, in spite of the fact that supporters of ID claim their theory does not state that the “Intelligent Designer” is “God,” every time supporters of ID make their bid for teaching it in schools, they use the argument that refusing to teach ID is “part of the plan to eliminate God from our schools.”

For instance, I found an op-ed piece from August 9, 2005 on U. S. A. Today.com, by Utah State Sen. D. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who is referred to as being “active on the evolution-education issue.” The piece contains his statement, “I believe those fighting against the teaching of intelligent design in schools have an ulterior motive to eliminate references to God from the entire public forum.” I thought ID had already eliminated such references in its bid to insert itself into public school curricula by calling itself a “scientific,” theory, one that does not define the name or the nature of the so-called “Designer.”

So, is Intelligent Design just another name for Creationism, which at least is honest enough to come right out and make the claim that life was created by “God?” If ID is supposed to be a “scientific,” (not relying on supernatural explanations) theory, then how is not teaching it trying to do anything whatsoever to “God?”

Also, he states that, “If you talk against Darwinian evolution in the classroom, you immediately incur the rage of those who don’t want God discussed in any way, shape or form.” This seems to assume those to be the only two options, but there is a difference between talking against evolution and advocating for belief in a god. One could take a stance against Darwinian evolution without thereby needing to resort to a god. The fact that Buttars, and the whole lot of the ID cohort, can’t seem to find any other explanation can be attributed to no more than a lack of imagination.

At least Eric Von Daniken was creative enough to find ancient spacemen in our lineage. If one feels compelled to stick with something more human-like, then how about back to the old goddess religions, which make more sense, since females are traditionally and intuitively recognized as the creators of life? The Earth Mother or Spider Woman could be alternatives, as could any of the traditional Greek or Roman gods, and I’m sure those with more imagination could devise any number of explanations for the origin and development of life on this swirling, round (yes folks, it is) blue planet.

So, it seems that those who challenge evolution only incur the rage of those who “don’t want God discussed in any way, shape or form,” because they don’t want to discuss god “in any way, shape or form.” They only want to discuss god in their way, their shape, their form, as the only other possible explanation in the absence of Darwin.

Buttars goes on to say that, “in this tremendous effort to support Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, in all these “mountains of information,” there has not been any scientific fossil evidence linking apes to man… There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man.”

I don’t know where this man got his “education,” but he is woefully lacking in knowledge. He clearly either has not studied the fossil record, or he doesn’t have the ability to understand the similarities between the fossils of pre-human creatures and ourselves, although a reasonably bright child could be expected to recognize the connections. His statement, “The trouble with the “missing link” is that it is still missing!” is indicative of the woeful state of this man’s scientific understanding. We do not expect to find that one fossil that is exactly halfway between apes and men, but we have enough transitional fossils and other evidence to put ourselves together with them on a family tree.

Sometime back, I made an attempt to construct my own family lineage on my father’s side. In this attempt, I found names and places that connected me to people long gone. But I also found many gaps, many places where I was uncertain which name belonged in that space between great-great grandfather and great-grandfather. However, I found other evidence, a place and date of birth, a marriage to someone who is known, so those missing links did not invalidate my connection to my ancestors. I may not have a name or a picture, but I know they existed because I know who their father was and I know who their daughter was. I am comfortable inferring their existence, and my descent from them.

Buttars thinks, “It takes an enormous leap of faith … to conclude that man evolved from ape without any empirical fossil evidence.” Despite his claim to the contrary, science does not rely on “faith,” but on evidence. And beyond the plentiful fossil evidence there are also other kinds of evidence. There is the evidence found in behaviors that are similar between apes and humans. There is the evidence found in DNA, which is remarkably similar between apes and humans; in fact, genetically we are closer to the chimpanzee than the chimpanzee is to gorillas. There is the evidence in cultural achievements such as the ability to use tools, once thought of as the mark of humanity. There is the evidence of patterns of migration, not just what fossils are found, but where they are found, and using these we can trace the emergence of man in, and the migration of man out of Africa. We don’t find man in other parts of the world until after we became human in Africa. Only if you can ignore all these kinds of evidence, just pretend they don’t exist, then you are left with the statement, “there is no evidence.”

My mom and I were once discussing why I believe in evolution and why she believed in the bible version of creation. And she asked a good question, “Well, then how do you explain all those fossils?” Well, yeah, how do you explain them? Because you can’t just wish them away.

The last quote from Buttars is, “That said, could it be that the reason they can’t find the missing link is that human evolution didn’t happen at all?” I read a statement like that and I just have to wonder if maybe he isn’t right…

One of the leading proponents of ID is William Dembski. The way he explains the fundamental (pun intended) claim of ID is that “there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” He uses Mount Rushmore as an example: “What about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mt. Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence.”

But the bible claims that god created not just life, but everything, including the earth itself. I guess there should logically be a difference between what we’d expect to find in an object designed by humans and an object designed by a god, but since Dembski seems to be using the same criteria for both, we’ll stick with his analogy, (although actually, he really didn’t specify the exact nature of the characteristic features or patterns that proves design of Mt. Rushmore).

Mt. Rushmore is obviously designed because it bears a mark of human design, it looks like us writ large, but only when juxtaposed next to other mountains that have not been so carved. If every mountain had the same types of shapes we would not be able to look at any one of them and find anything that would distinguish it from all others so that we could say, “That looks like it was designed by humans.”

The same should be true of god’s designs; using the same criteria, we should not be able to detect such god-designed objects because supposedly he created everything and so everything should look “designed.” The problem that occurs when everything looks designed is how would we distinguish something that wasn’t? What would we look for that would set apart those things that were designed from those that were not?

If god created (designed) everything, then how can Dembski pick out any one feature from all others and distinguish design in that one feature? Shouldn’t every feature show evidence of design? If god created everything, how could Dembski look at any mountain or rock or canyon and ever see anything that could be due to “merely wind and erosion?” And if anything can possibly be caused, or changed, by merely wind and erosion, that is, by natural forces, then where does he draw the line between what can be caused or changed by natural forces and what must be caused or changed by something else?

If something created by god shows evidence of such creation, then every single thing should bear such evidence, with no exceptions. That being the case, using Mt. Rushmore as an example wouldn’t be useful because it is a feature that shows human intervention in contrast to everything else around it. With god’s creations there shouldn’t be anything that would distinguish one feature from any other in that respect. But one must be able to draw such a line if there are supposedly distinguishing characteristics of those things that were intelligently designed. Confusing.

It’s been a while since I’ve written anything here. I’ve been painting. My son, Mike, bought a condo, his first home of his own, and my mom and I have spent a lot of days there while he’s been at work. We’ve been sanding, washing, priming and painting every wall (and a couple of the ceilings) in the whole place. I realized it’s a lot bigger than it looks. Exhausting. In the middle of this project, the monsoon season hit and we find out there are leaks… leaks in the rooms we just painted! He’s on the lower floor, so I wouldn’t have thought this would be a problem, but HAH! that’ll show me. Apparently the roof caused some of the leaks and the old, worn wax toilet seal in one of the condos above caused one in the kitchen. Dammit!

So while Mike has been dealing with the HOA, the maintenance crew, the owner of upstairs, et. al., I took a break and went over to my daughter’s to help her paint her bedroom. What is it with my kids and paint? Kathy is doing an Egyptian style bedroom. This is quite a transition from the floral wallpaper of the past. Wallpaper is a bitch to get off. We used a steamer, though, so we did eventually remove the last of it. In the process, since it was hovering around 115 degrees in Phoenix, we created a nice little sauna for ourselves, a distinctly bad idea in summer in Phoenix. After surgically removing the last shards of paper from the walls, we had to apply one coat of primer, one coat of base and three different glazes. Took four days to complete the job. I must say, it looks very cool.

In between paint jobs, I’ve kept busy writing letters to assorted editors:

Echo Magazine
June 17, 2005

Editor- A letter to the editor published in the June 2 issue reminded us that the proposed action of the Arizona legislature to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The writer asks, “Do the proponents of this bill read the state or federal Constitutions?”

I submit that, unfortunately, they apparently actually did read those documents, and they found, to their horror, that what they’d been taught in school is true! Those documents really do guarantee equal rights to everyone!

Needless to say, they sprang into action. They realized they must work quickly before some “activist judge” somewhere decides to read the same documents and interpret them to mean that “equal rights” really means equal for everyone.

What they’re trying to do, before that happens, is to change the Constitution of the United States, as well as state Constitutions so that discrimination would no longer be “unconstitutional.” The right to discriminate would be written into our Constitution(s).

Speak out now! Don’t let the voices of bigotry be the only ones heard.

June 17, 2005
Editor
Arizona Republic

A writer seems worried that “determined activists” are trying to “redefine marriage.” Let me clarify: “Determined activists” are using the courts to try to claim the legal rights promised by the Constitution, equal protection under the law and the right to due process. They know that our Constitution clearly promises this; that’s why they are in such a panic to get it changed real quick, before some “activist judge” decides to read that document and interpret “equal” to mean equal for everybody.

Those whose goal is to deny others the rights they enjoy cannot support doing so by logic, so they make vague references to some sort of “threat” to the family, to society, to our collective morality. They never come out and say exactly what the “threat” is, only that if we don’t rescind the rights of some Americans, marriage will be “redefined.” They do understand one important thing; the power to define is the road to ultimate power.

The problem with that argument is that marriage has been “redefined” from state to state and throughout history. If they read their own Bibles more carefully, they might find that many of the men in there had multiple wives. One of the same sections that supposedly warn against homosexuality also makes it fine to turn your virgin daughters over to potential rapists. They pick and choose the few verses that seem to support their position and they conveniently ignore those that would require them to sacrifice goats in their kitchen. They point to church doctrine to support writing gay people out of our collective social contract, but ignore their own rules on issues of birth control, divorce, in-vitro fertilization, remarriage… They don’t want to “redefine” marriage, but they do want to “redefine” our rights as Americans.

July 9, 2005

Editor, Echo Magazine

They Know Not What They Do

Reported in Buddy Early’s column, Len Munsil’s comment about Governor Janet Napolitano was that she “is trying to walk a fine line – declaring her opposition to same sex marriage, while promoting (gay equality) in any other way she can think of.”

That’s a very telling statement, isn’t it? The party line for CAP and the holier-than-thou church groups seems to be that they don’t hate gay people, they’re not trying to hurt anyone, they are only trying to “protect marriage.” They always say this with that ‘sweet,’ strained half smile, the raised eyebrows, the wide eyes, the tilted head and the expression of concern one uses when trying to explain to a child why he simply must eat his broccoli “because it is good for you.”

At a protest downtown, one apparently sincere young woman from CAP came over to explain this to us. I must note here that she was unaware that 1,049 federal laws are attached to marriage; when I told her that, she did show the beginnings of understanding the inconsistency between not wanting to hurt gay people and denying them marriage. I know it made her stop and think.

I wonder if most of them really don’t get how being denied marriage hurts gay people legally. And I wonder if they really listen to the statements of their leaders. Because if it is true that all they want is to “protect marriage” from what they see as a threat, then shouldn’t they be doing exactly what Munsil derides Napolitano for doing (opposing marriage while working for equality in every other way)?

I don’t know what the rest of the rabid CAPpers really want, but the statement by Munsil makes it very clear that his goal, at least, goes far beyond keeping gay couples from being able to marry, they want to deny gay citizens all rights, all protections, all benefits, except the right to pay their taxes, follow the laws, be content with second-class citizenship, sit down and shut up. If the rest of them are more like that young woman, maybe we need to focus on educating them about the legal harm they’re doing.

July 9, 2005

The Arizona Republic

Editor-

A few months ago, PBS planned to air an episode of the children’s show “Postcards From Buster,” depicting a New England family that makes maple sugar. A lot of folks, including the Secretary of Education, went so nuts over this that the episode was shelved. Why? The family consisted of a lesbian couple and their children. The whole thing was just moronic. They weren’t planning to air a live sex act on TV; they planned to show kids how to make maple sugar.

Now someone writes complaining about The Republic featuring a couple who enjoy movies. Again the claim is that showing such people will harm children. I think the problem is not that they’re afraid kids shown depictions of lesbian couples will be exposed to some kind of lecherous pornography, but that they won’t. They’re afraid the kids will see a couple of women who love their kids, who run a home, who make maple sugar, who like movies. They’re afraid it might be hard to justify their own homophobia if they’re confronted with portrayals showing gay people in anything but a horrible light. Squeeze your eyes shut real tight, stick your fingers in your ears and say “La, la, la” real loud so you won’t see or hear the sight and sound of a normal family.

August 2, 2005

Re: Embrace religious freedom or lose it

Editor-

The statement, “Freedom of religion, not from religion” translates as, “You may choose any belief system you want, as long as it involves belief in an approved supernatural being: if you do not hold such belief yourself, we have the right to impose on you laws that will subject you to our beliefs.”

Marriage itself may not be a “dogma of religious fanatics,” but the conviction that they have the right to demand withholding from same sex couples the legal benefits attached to marriage is based only on religious dogma. There is no valid secular argument for doing so.

Is marriage a religious institution or a legal one? When it suits their purpose, marriage is some sort of holy institution, but then they make up reasons why there should be legal benefits attached to it. We all pay taxes that provide some of those benefits, so if religious groups get to write our marriage laws, then the legal benefits should be abolished because no group of people should be able to write laws granting themselves special rights and locking others out.

Along with my painting and letter-writing campaign, after a month-long break, the Marriage Equality Task Force began meeting again. I also took my mom to a Town Hall meeting sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, where they showed a promo for an upcoming documentary film, “For the Bible Tells Me So.” It’s going to be very good; go see it when it comes out, preferably the first weekend (they explained that this is the determining factor for how enthusiastically it will be distributed). A few nights ago, Mike, mom and I went to a candlelight vigil in downtown Phoenix for a young gay man named Amancio Corrales, a female impersonator who was murdered and left in the river in Yuma a few months ago (no suspects yet).

Then there was to be a debate on radio talk show KTAR. Len Munsil of the Center for Arizona Policy and Glen Stanton of Focus on the Family were debating CAP’s “Protect Marriage” amendment with Steve May of HRC and David Ragan of No Longer Silent/Clergy For Justice (one of the ministers who has joined in our rallies and demonstrations). Someone from the Task Force asked me to try to get through and phone in a question about how CAP could morally justify a heterosexual monopoly on marriage. So I sat down and wrote and rewrote the question, trying to make as many points as I could in the few seconds I knew I’d have. When I got through, I asked the following:

“Thank you for taking my call. I’m the mother of a gay son who has been with his partner for 12 ½ years now and my question for Mr. Munsil and Mr. Stanton is this:

Many who argue against marriage equality make it sound like marriage is just a religious issue, but there are about 1,049 federal laws in which marriage is a factor, many concern issues like Social Security, Housing, Food Stamps, Veterans’ Benefits, Taxation. Given how many legal benefits and civil rights are obtainable only through marriage, how can you morally justify a heterosexual monopoly on that institution and therefore on those legal benefits for which we all (including my son and his partner) pay taxes?”

Steve was listening out in the car since I had the volume turned down. A couple of minutes later, he came back in and said, “Boy, you’re a troublemaker, aren’t you?” (I try to be).

I will be better about writing more faithfully, at least for a while, since the painting is about finished.

Online polls, I’m not sure why, but I just love them. I don’t know how accurate they are, but they seem to satisfy some perverse need to either ally myself with those superior others who share my opinion or to arrogantly scorn those who don’t. Either way, they serve a purpose. I can take an online poll and no matter what the result, I can claim something good about myself. Either the vote has been so closely aligned with my own that I can say, “Well, see, it really is so obvious; almost everyone can recognize it,” thus I nestle comfortably into the fold of those other astute souls out there in the ether. Or if I appear to be out of sync with the mainstream (a not uncommon occurrence) I can rail self-righteously, “Oh, my god! I can’t believe those people are so stupid!” (compared to me, of course). I do understand that numbers do not always, or even often, reflect the truth, but I still engage in this small act of self-deception whenever I am presented with any kind of online poll or survey. I find them irresistible.

Awhile back, I took one rather lengthy survey at a site to which my husband had sent me a link. It’s called the Political Compass, and, like others of its ilk, it places you on a scale according to how far to the left or right you are, but it also shows where you fall on a north/south axis that represents with what level of government control over your life you are comfortable. This is represented by the terms Authoritarian (north, much government control) or Libertarian (south, little government control). You submit your answers, all this information is processed and the resultant report places you somewhere on a grid. They also show you the charts they did on some famous persons (living and dead) to whose politics you can then compare yours. This survey revealed me to be to the left (liberal) and south (libertarian) of both Gandhi and Mandela (and everyone else they charted). I don’t know what exactly that says about either my politics or my grip on reality, but I do recognize that it places me somewhat outside the mainstream, no matter who is defining “mainstream.”

While I’m waiting for the rest of the world to catch up to my politics, I continue taking part in online polls. I recently took one that asked if I thought the Democrats are being “fair” to the White House about the Karl Rove affair. And after I clicked on “Yes,” then they asked, “Why?” That’s something I’ve rarely seen in an online poll. Usually they just ask you to select one of several options, but they never ask why you selected that one. So I typed into the dialog box:

“Bush’s assertion that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger was a lie. That was one of the lies that he used as an excuse to take us into a WAR. Many of our young men and women are dying and being maimed, and we are made to look like imperialist fools to the rest of the world; we have more enemies than ever because Bush got away with lying to us. Mr. Wilson tried to warn us before we’d gone to the precipice and they went after his wife in retaliation. The Democrats are being more than “fair,” they are being mushy; they should be screaming the lie from the rooftops.”

That was nice; they actually cared why I thought what I thought… my humble opinion mattered. I was flattered.

They also asked what the White House should do with the person who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame:

“They are the ones telling us we are in enough danger that we must give up our civil rights for protection. In such a “dangerous” time, one who leaks information on national security issues should be fired, if not hanged for treason.”

It’s really too bad I don’t get to make these decisions for real; I’d be so good, don’t you think? A. Yes, I think you should be the one making decisions for everyone. B. I think you should be allowed to make some decisions, but only about things like what you will have for dinner. C. You are clearly crazy and should be locked up.

Thank you for taking our survey.

Is Karl Rove already old news? Two days ago, Bush has a seemingly fatal problem in his White House staff, a problem bad enough to cause a meltdown in his presidency, that should spell the beginning of the end, and just when it looks like the country will finally be made to face the truth about this man and his war, he announces a nominee for the Supreme Court and all of a sudden Rove is off the radar screen? Where is the “liberal media?” It seemed like when Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to reveal her source the press corps was finally waking from their White- House- press- release-induced coma and starting to actually ask some tough questions. Then Bush dangles a court nominee and they just lose concentra… Ooohh, shiny! Read the rest of this entry »

Just a quick comment tonight: Chief Justice Rehnquist announced that he does not have plans to retire. When he finally gave a statement that many thought would be his announcement that he’s leaving the bench, what he said instead was:

“I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.”

The reaction from the White House was reported as follows: Read the rest of this entry »

So it turns out it was Karl Rove who outed Valerie Plame. I wonder if anyone will care. This is sort of like the old TV serials, where at the end of each episode a voice would ask the burning questions the audience was supposed to be pondering at that point. Will Sweet Sue escape from Dastardly Dan? Will Hero Harry find her in time? Will it bother Americans that this arrogant ass revealed sensitive information having to do with our national security to a reporter whom he knew was sure to make that information public? Will enough Americans understand the significance of what happened that there will be a strong enough public outcry to force an investigation, Senate hearings, any response? Will they be outraged that the White House put the life of a covert CIA agent and those of her contacts in jeopardy to get back at her husband for telling the world that the reasons Bush was giving for attacking Iraq weren’t true? Will the Democrats finally find their voices and actually accuse the White House of misdeeds? Read the rest of this entry »

I seem to recall a claim being made by Bush that went something like, “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” I wonder what they’re telling themselves in London tonight.

About a year ago, someone wrote a letter to the editor saying he could “not understand why Americans don’t see the necessity for the actions Bush has taken in Iraq and why it’s imperative that we stay strong.” I don’t know why it’s so hard for people like that to understand why those of us who opposed the invasion of Iraq did so. Read the rest of this entry »

Lee died today. Jeff asked Tom to call me with the news. There will be a memorial service soon. I feel so bad for Chuck. They’ve been together 21 years. Tom said tonight is the first night in all that time that Chuck will be alone. I’m guessing that they are both in their sixties (sorry if I guessed high on that one) and I can’t imagine losing your soulmate at that stage of life.

Mike and I have only been working with the Task Force for a little over a year now, so I don’t know them that well, not nearly as well as those who have been privileged to know them for a much longer time. Even so, I was greeted with smiles and hugs and, “Howya doing, Sweetie?” Where’s Mike? He’s such a nice guy.” When I brought my mom to the church to look through the stuff at the rummage sale, I introduced her and she, too, was met with hugs — not phony hugs, but “I am genuinely glad to meet you” hugs. Lee and Chuck are just two authentically nice people and I understand fully why they love each other.

You could see that love in the gentle way they joked with one another, in the smiling eyes when they looked at each other, in the arm draped comfortably, lovingly over a shoulder, in the easy familiarity they display with each other, while they never seemed to take each other for granted; even in a crowded room, they seemed to be aware of each other. Their relationship did not seem to have an imbalance of power; they seemed to form a true partnership. I understand this; it is what my husband and I have. To have such a partnership is a treasure of the heart. I’m glad that Chuck and Lee had that; I am sorry for the loss.

I have two regrets this evening as I write this. The first is that I didn’t get to know Lee better. We both work with groups through the church, but different groups and so we see each other infrequently. The other is that the group with which I work did not accomplish its mission in time for Chuck and Lee to marry.

Twenty-one years should be enough time for any couple to demonstrate their deep commitment to each other. Twenty-one years is a lot longer than many couples, if not most couples, stay together. Twenty-one years together is usually met with the admiration reserved for any couple that has managed to hang on to the roller coaster ride of a committed relationship. Twenty-one years…now that’s love.

In memory of Lee, I vow to continue to work with the Marriage Equality Task Force, to advocate for the right of same-sex couples to marry. If any couple ever deserved that, Chuck and Lee did.

July 4, 2005

It’s been about 13 years since I’ve stood up and said the Pledge of Allegiance. Around that time, I became convinced that this country speaks lofty words, but they are hollow and I regretfully decided to simply stop mindlessly repeating them.

Shortly after making that decision, we moved to a small town (about 7,000 people) in northern California. On July 3rd that year, there was to be the annual fireworks display and what seemed like nearly the entire town gathered on the football field at the local high school. Read the rest of this entry »

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the right of states, using the doctrine of eminent domain, to take private property from one person (at fair market value) and give it to another if the new owner could make better use of it by turning it to some function that would generate greater tax revenues for the state. The Court deemed this a “public good.” Oh, the outrage! How dare they take someone’s private property and allow someone else to decide that they know better how to use that property? What colossal nerve. And yet… Read the rest of this entry »

I’d like to begin by saying… GO CANADA!! I hope we get some ‘trickle-down’ sanity from our most excellent neighbors to the north.

Thank you for your patience while I took this little sortie down memory boulevard. These are the last few old letters that I wanted to publish here.

The first are responses to those companies and organizations that are trying to do the right thing. The APA is to be commended for dragging itself out of the Dark Ages. Ford Motor Company, hats off to you.

Kraft Foods… Well, what can I say? I actually have a “shit list,” a printed out list of companies and products that I do not buy for one reason or another. I started it about 15 years ago. Exxon got on my list for that whole Exxon Valdez/Prince William Sound thing, and I haven’t stopped at an Exxon station since. I will only buy organic chocolate because of the child slave labor used to produce cocoa on the Ivory Coast. Companies have found themselves on my list for animal testing, contributing to the Republican Party, racial discrimination… any number of things. Never, until today, has a company managed to earn its way off.

The last letter is not actually a letter; it’s a copy of the presentation I did at the Maricopa Community Colleges Board of Directors meeting last night. I was the first person called up to speak. I addressed my comments to Mr. Walker, I got applause from the audience. Brad addressed the rest of the Board (also applause) and, gratifyingly, there were others there who spoke out on this issue (applause all around, no boos). I hope they all got the message. Read the rest of this entry »

Okay folks, we’re coming up on the end of the old letters. Just today and maybe one more day and we should be caught up. The first of today’s letters is in response to a teenage girl who’d written a letter to the editor (likely with mom or dad standing over her shoulder). The next is a response to another letter writer. The third is to our dear representative, Trent Franks (the flaming fool). Then there’s one to the TV stations that refused to air the commercial from UUC churches welcoming anyone. There are a few more various and sundry letters. The last entry was not a letter, but a presentation I gave at the press conference we held outside the state capitol right after the final vote to send their stupid postcard to congress.

Tonight we’re going to attend a meeting of the Maricopa Community Colleges Board of Directors. One of them, Jerry Walker, was on the campus at one of the community colleges a few months ago. It was during Club Days, he was talking with a student and Walker pointed to the rainbow flag and asked the student if that was the “local gay group.” The student replied yes and Walker said,”It’s a shame that they’re here.” The student told him that he (the student) is gay, and Walker replied, “Well, it’s a shame that you are.” We’re going tonight to let the Board know how we feel about Mr. Walker’s comments. The letters… Read the rest of this entry »

Tonight’s letters : The first one is a short response to a letter that was phoned in to the editor (they call it the Vent Line and it’s anonymous) in one of the local news publications that get thrown on our driveway once a week; have to keep track of where the dialog is gong on a local level, too. I think it’s important to call them on it every time they try to justify their prejudices with fallacious reasoning. It keeps them from getting too bold.

(Ooh, ooh, I just remembered a couple of letters I wrote just after we moved back here; those were great! When I get done with this series of old letters, I’ll have to find those and put them in the lineup. But now back to today)… Read the rest of this entry »

Here are the next few letters, one to our US Senator, Jon Kyl, one to the state representative from Mesa, Mark Anderson, and a reply to 3 letters in a local paper.

Also included is one to my mother. I must say, it’s been a process to pull my mother into the light, but I have to hand it to her; she’s going to be 80 in a few days (July 6) and I have a new-found respect for her. I really didn’t give her credit for being able to change her views so drastically at her age, but she’s been willing to discuss this issue with me for many, many, many hours. She’s read a bunch of books I’ve given her, and newspaper clippings that I haul over there by the ton. She’s done a lot of thinking.

A couple of weeks ago, my husband, our youngest son, another member of the Marriage Task Force and I spent the day stuffing postcards objecting to the “marriage amendment” into a local gay magazine. I am proud to say that my mom worked right alongside us, she says the magazine is “really good,” she’s been to a couple of Task Force meetings and I even took her to church at Gentle Shepherd one Sunday at her request. (she says she’s never felt so welcome at a church and she just loves Pastor Brad). I have decided that my mom is an amazing woman; her love for her grandson and a more open mind than I ever gave her credit for are overcoming the blindness of the hate groups that call themselves Christians. Mom, I am so proud of you.

Here are the letters: Read the rest of this entry »

Here are the next few letters, as promised… Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve gone back over some of the letters I’ve written over the past few years on the issue of civil rights for gay people. I had them in a number of different files on my computer, based on whether a letter was to an editor or a politician or someone else. I’ve combined all those files into a master file based on chronology and I’ve decided to post some of them on the blog. I’ll do this over several days, just a couple each day so as not to overwhelm anyone.

I wanted to do this because I think that although they were written in response to particular issues at the time, the issues in these letters are still cropping up, still relevant, and I’d just like people to read them. I hope you find in them a word or phrase that you can take with you and drag it out when you need a quick response. They’ll be posted in chronological order so you can see the progression of the politics (forward and backward) and of my thoughts.We’ll start with a letter to Clinton… Read the rest of this entry »

If we take money out of the Social Security system and allow those who choose to do so to invest in private stocks, that would remove money from the system, but it would also lower the guaranteed benefits to which those persons would be entitled when they retire. If we allow a person to take 25% of his Social Security tax to invest himself, and we cut his Social Security benefit by a corresponding 25%, then that should equal out, I guess. But the equation is not as simple as that. Read the rest of this entry »