Category Archives: Kulturkampf

Anti-choicers, unite!

Skimming through recent comments, I ran into one from LexWolf (it’s the 147th on that post, so you’ll have to scroll down a bit) that began this way:

Confounding the anti-choicers’ constant bleating…

… and of course you can guess what I thought it was about. And my mind was just starting to figure out why LexWolf would be using such a term, thinking Well, he’s really libertarian, and abortion advocates are really libertarian… when I got to the next phrase:

… about who would build those private schools…

OK, so it was a different expression of libertarianism, one more characteristic of the "right" than the "left" and therefore more consistent with what we usually hear from that particular gentleman.

This got me to wondering, though: How many readers out there are, like me, consistently "anti-choice," to use the loaded language of our detractors? (If I can find enough of us, we might actually get that UnParty thing going.) For that matter, how many are consistently "pro-choice," on both abortion and education?

While the two issues are wildly different, and people can be for one and against the other for an almost unlimited number of reasons, they do have that one element in common: In both cases, advocates use the dodge of "choice," which to American ears sounds so nice and friendly, to avoid describing what they actually favor.

Why? Because "abortion" and "tax subsidies for private schools" both sound pretty awful to a neutral observers ear.

Thoughts?

Classy disagreement

After all my efforts to foster constructive dialogue that can promote understanding on issues here on my blog, some of the most thoughtful people still respond via e-mail. Here’s an example of someone I’ve corresponded with since Sunday on my abortion column.

If that subject can’t generate incivility, what can? So it is that I deeply appreciate someone who can disagree with someone so completely, and yet so reasonably:

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:07 PM
Dear Mr. Warthen:
    I have yet again been touched by the thoughtfulness of your writing about the proposed ultrasound viewing requirements for those seeking abortions. I would like to suggest you consider two additional concerns you did not acknowledge: one, everyone does not believe life in the sense of a human being, rather than a clump of living cells with the potential to be a whole human being when and if born, begins at conception. I believe that fetal cells are living only insofar as cancer cells are or the healthy tissue excised along with the cancer cells. None of these cells can live independent of the host body. I truly respect your views, though, especially as they are consistent — if a fetus is a life, no rape and incest exceptions–even if a family member of someone powerful is involved. Many of our legislators and anti-abortionists waffle on this point, implying that they do not truly equate the fetal cells with a fully born human, such as their wife or daughter. Kudos to you also for pointing out the lack of legislative concern for the afterborn lives!
    Two, I do not know that an ultrasound is medically necessary or advisable, especially in the first trimester. If it is, giving the patient the option to view it is fine, but requiring it — I was not required to view the results of my prehysterectomy ultrasound, nor did I desire to do so….If it is not medically advisable, we should not require anyone to pay for it — there is enough life being wasted because of inadequate medical funding, don’t you think?

Kathryn Braun Fenner
Columbia, SC

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:27 PM
    Well, as I said, I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other.
    As for the medical advisability — I just had sinus surgery last month, which only involved going about two inches up my nose, and didn’t even involve cutting anything, just widening the passage with a balloon. Yet I had to have multiple CT scans, and I made sure to see them, to help me decide whether I thought the procedure is worth doing.
    And I deeply appreciate the kindness of your note, especially since we obviously view this very differently. You don’t see the fetus and a person, and I can’t imagine how anyone could see anything else. I certainly can’t see a logical analogy to cancer cells. Cancer is a serious dysfunction in which cells grow wildly in a manner that will kill the individual if not stopped. Pregnancy, from the very beginning, is not only a healthy, normal process, but one that is essential to life’s very existence.
    I was present each time my wife gave birth to our five children. Six years ago, she developed breast cancer that spread to her liver before being discovered. Only the most aggressive attacks on the tumors that were trying to kill her have kept her alive.
    What I’m saying is that I can tell you without any doubt that there is an enormous, night-and-day difference between a baby and a tumor. Our children, when they were growing inside her for nine months, were not the moral equivalent of tumors.
    One other point, take that term, "baby." Under our current system, we give one person — the mother — absolute godlike power to determine whether what is inside her is a "baby." If she wants it, it’s a baby. She and her family will speak constantly of "the baby" — when the baby will come, how the baby’s room is coming along, the baby shower, baby names, etc.
    If she doesn’t want it, it’s "just a fetus," and can indeed be treated legally as a tumor.
    That makes no sense in the world. It’s either a baby or it isn’t. Its existence does NOT depend upon the attitude of anybody toward it. It is or it isn’t. That’s the nature of reality.
    Well, you got me started. What I mean to say is, thank you for your kind note, and for the opportunity for dialogue.

— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:50 PM

Brad-
    I am so sorry about your wife’s illness. My thoughts and prayers are with her and your family. Please forgive my apparent trivializing of the pain of cancer by comparing a tumor to a fetus–although as you acknowledged in your piece, to some, a fetus may be a death threat.
    I am glad you have five welcome children. People like you and your wife should have enormous love-filled families. I have done a lot of work with juvenile offenders and with DSS "clients." I do believe abstinence is the best option for those who are not going to have loved, two-parent children. The Supreme Court notwithstanding, everyone does not have a fundamental right to sex, or to have children; it is a privilege at least as worthy of respect and control as driving! I bemoan our sexualized society. However, it is what it is, though courageous journalists like you are certainly speaking up to try to change this. Given our culture, and the many generations of "lost children" from DSS-land, can we at least agree that maybe teaching and making available alternatives to abortion that are more likely to avoid pregnancy than abstinence is advisable, the Pope notwithstanding.
    BTW, pregnancy is not always a healthy normal process. Ectopic pregnancy is one obvious example. Is that a baby, absolutely not a baby or something in between?
— Kathryn Fenner

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:06 PM
    Well, you exceeded my vocabulary on that one. I had to look it up to learn that "ectopic" referred to what I think of as "tubal."
    Indeed, given the complexity of life, particularly in the higher animals, many things can go wrong with otherwise healthy processes. For instance, it’s a good thing to have a strong immune system. But if it becomes TOO reactive, you end up like me, spending thousands a year treating allergies.
    I see the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control as something to be embraced by the faithful, NOT to be imposed on a pluralistic society. I would not, for instance, seek to have civil law ban the eating of meat on Fridays in Lent.
    But life or death, once the process of life has begun — that’s a different matter. The state has a legitimate interest there; it just depends upon how we decide to define that role. Unfortunately, Roe forbids us even to discuss it, placing the issue of life and death absolutely in the hands of the most interested, least impartial party. That’s not a standard we would apply in any other area of the law where the stakes are so great.
    Thank you again for the kind exchange. Do you mind if I post it on my blog?
— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:59 PM
    I exceeded your vocabulary? Wow!
    Process of life….What about fertilized in vitro eggs? When is something "living" –in the independent "life" sense (rather than the "my fingertip is living but my fingernail tips are dead" sense) as opposed to merely potentially able to live on its own?
    Roe does not forbid US or anyone else from discussing abortion (God bless America–freedom of speech is what makes this country great) I’m not planning on being arrested for this e-mail exchange, are you? We can even publish it (post it on your blog, if you must–I’m not keen on being identified to the nut-jobs like Fetus Man–does he really think he will change anyone’s mind with baby dolls pinned to his jacket?–, but I will stand behind what I say–though my brother, the copy editor, would surely fix up the language!).
    Roe says, basically "Congress shall make no law" impeding on an adult woman’s right (with her doctor), during the first trimester, and possibly the second, to decide when the cells in her are a fetus and when they are a baby. (BTW–why do we have a good old word "fetus" but no "old" word for "post-birth baby" as opposed to just "baby." Historically, I believe we have been ambivalent at best about when an independent life begins.)
    Absolutely I agree that IF abortion is murder, if a fetus is a baby is a fully protectable legal person–indeed far more so than a corporation, say– then the State has an interest, indeed an imperative, in outlawing abortion. I do not believe that a fetus is the same as baby. You do, and as I said, I applaud the strength with which you stand for that. I truly respect that. I believe that, God forbid, if one of your loved ones were raped, you would protect that fetus with the same fervor as the child of a lawful marriage.  Many "pro-life" advocates would not, which makes me think they are a lot about punishment and enforcing morality on a wayward woman, rather than protecting a potential life…and as you say, they pro-life movement is not overly concerned about the welfare of the "afterborn"….
    Oh and the Legislature, backed by at least one court, won’t let us outlaw cigarette smoking in the workplace, —which is proven to kill lives-in-being–and as you have written, prevent the allergic/asthmatic among us from fully participating in public life. There are 
other "no go " zones besides abortion….but that is a discussion for another day.

Peace–
Kathryn

Peace, indeed. I think I’ll leave it there with her having the last word. No, I’ll let Stephen Wright have the last word. I love this postscript Kathryn tagged onto her last message:

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.

Steven Wright

 

Abortion column

Abortion in America:
the antithesis of consensus

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
THE SOUTH Carolina General Assembly did a number of important things last week:

  • A House panel slam-dumped a proposal to keep the Barnwell nuclear waste facility open past 2008, sending a clear, 16-0 signal that our state does not want to be seen as the nation’s trashcan.
  • The full House dramatically rejected the latest attempt to slip tuition tax credits for the affluent and vouchers for everybody into the new superintendent of education’s public school choice bill.
  • The House missed a chance to meaningfully reform the state Department of Transportation, passing a bill that leaves an accountability-diffusing commission in the driver’s seat. The Senate did something much worse.
  • The House sent 4K back to a committee for further consideration. Remember last year, when it seemed we had a consensus that the state had a critical role to play in early education for the neediest children? That’s in danger now.

    Lawmakers did other things, such as move toward some improvements in DUI law, ditch the idea of a Confederate Memorial Month, and discussed requiring that women be shown an ultrasound before they get an abortion.
    That last one certainly caused a lot of talk. But our editorial board didn’t take a stand on the subject, and probably won’t. Why? We adopt editorial positions on the basis of consensus, and on abortion, our board is like America: We have no consensus. Abortion in America is the antithesis of consensus.
    Witness the insanity that Roe v. Wade imposed on our politics: You can’t be a Democratic nominee for president unless you’ll stack the Supreme Court to protect it, and you can’t be a Republican nominee unless you’ll stack the court to overturn it — as though there were nothing else to being president. And hardly anyone pipes up to say the court shouldn’t be stacked.
    Even if I believed abortion should be available on demand, I wouldn’t think it worth this price. But I don’t. For me, the only ethical position is that it should not be available at all except in a question of a life for a life.
    That doesn’t mean I’m for this bill. Or against it. Logically, it shouldn’t be causing all the fuss it is. But logic is out of bounds in abortion “debates.”
    Why do other abortion opponents bother with this? Do they really think the woman seeking an abortion doesn’t know what she seeks to do? Yes, they do.
    I’ve heard that said critically by opponents of this measure, which is ironic, because they have no more respect for the woman’s intelligence than advocates do. They not only think these images will give the woman information she doesn’t have, they don’t want her to have it. Feminists can be quite paternalistic.
    The measure doesn’t seem to me very likely to produce the effect that advocates seek and opponents fear. The ultrasound, the showing of the pictures, the hour’s wait, and the abortion itself would all occur at the same place — the abortion clinic. I imagine it being treated by all parties present rather like those stupid HIPAA documents we’re required to swear in writing we’ve examined:
    “OK, well, you’ve got to sign these — you’re over 18, right? Here are some brochures we have to give you, and some pictures we took you have to see. I’ll be back in an hour and get you to sign some more forms and we’ll be ready.”
    The fuss is even less logical when you look at the law being amended. Anyone seeking an abortion already must receive brochures about organizations that offer alternatives to abortion, and then wait an hour. Logically, anybody who wasn’t swayed by that is unlikely to be turned around by fuzzy images. But it’s not about logic, is it? There’s something about pictures.
    Given the irrational power of the graven image, it might save some lives, and for that reason I have no particular objection to the bill. I give little credence to arguments that it’s “coercive” or “burdensome.” I would hope that any medical professional about to perform an abortion would want to do an ultrasound anyway, as basic pre-op. If not, maybe “safe, legal and rare” isn’t so much about safe. Or rare. But if an ultrasound is done, why not show the images to the patient? You would with any other kind of procedure.
    If it does save a few lives, some will be miserable. If your mom can be persuaded whether you should live or not on the basis of some odd pictures, she’s not likely to be what you’d call a rock-steady nurturer — especially when you give her affection reason to waver, as even the best children do. That can make for a hell of a childhood. It’s no reason to have an abortion — there is a moral emptiness in saying that because a life is likely to be unhappy, that life should not be.
    But if you advocate for that life, if you pass a law in a frank bid to save that life, you have a burden of responsibility to do what you can to see that child has a chance for something better.
    If the state intervenes to urge that life into being, the state can’t just wait for these kids to show up at its prison gates.
    Any lawmaker who advocates this ultrasound measure should therefore be just as strong a proponent of early childhood education. He should beef up child protective services, and increase Medicaid coverage. Etc.
    Pro-choicers are so obnoxious when they sneer, “They don’t care about the child after it’s born.” What’s more obnoxious is that it’s so often true. In the second trimester, it’s lawmaker to the rescue; 10 years later, it’s “That’s not my child.”
    Why do “bleeding-heart liberals” not care about the most powerless? Why do anti-government types want government intervention at this time and this time only? You would think things would be the other way around.
    But nothing about the whole left-vs.-right divide in this country makes any sense. And it hasn’t, for the past three decades.

We get this a LOT

A missive came to us labeled "Letter to the editor," but it also shouted "NOT FOR PUBLICATION." So we’ll compromise. I’ll put it on the blog, but without attribution:

     Warren Bolton’s religious opinions ("Why seek ye the living among the dead?") belong in the religion section, not on the editorial page. While IBolton respect his right to practice Christianity, his religious beliefs do not interest me. Frankly, I’m surprised The State feels they belong in the main part of the paper.
    However, may he keep beating up on payday lenders. Good job!

My colleague Warren puts folks who despise both religion and predatory lenders in a tough spot; they don’t know whether to spit or cheer.

For my part, I just cheer.

Long before Stephen Carter put out The Culture of Disbelief in 1994, I wondered why we in the press regarded religion as off-limits. Newspapers could deal with people’s views about politics, sports, sex, food, popular culture, health issues, and pretty much anything else, but God needed to be neatly walled off, confined to a page that was the personal domain of a less-than-favored reporter whose job it was to have lunch with preachers to keep them from bothering editors.

It was as though the Fourth Estate had misread the First Amendment, confusing a couple of the clauses:

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, so long as the press makes no articles respecting religion, or the free exercise thereof …

But don’t just blame the press. A lot of readers seemed to buy into the same premise. Still do.

I had noticed that editorial pages ditched letters that quoted Scripture routinely — sometimes as a matter of rigid policy. I always thought this was utterly ridiculous. Still do. What do you think?

The virtues of Virtual Schools

South Carolina now has it’s very own version of the stem-cell debate — unfortunately.

The stem-cell fight, as we all know, isn’t about stem cells; it’s about abortion. Similarly, the virtual school fight has morphed into a surrogate for the "school choice" debate.

Consequently, the virtues, or lack thereof, of virtual pedagogy have been pushed to the back burner. But that’s what I’d like to talk about.

I have my suspicions about the efficacy of the whole idea. I think offering long-distance classes to kids who might not otherwise have access to such pedagogy sounds very good — after all, the greatest challenge in public education in this state is what to do about the kids who live in poor, rural, thinly populated districts that have trouble offering the quality found in the affluent suburbs.

At the same time, after about 25 years of witnessing the limits of electronic communication, I have my doubts. That’s about how long I’ve been dealing with e-mail in one way or another. I’ve also had some experience with teleconferencing, which is a tool of dubious value.

Yet I’m torn about it.

I know virtual schooling can’t be as good as being face-to-face with a teacher. At the same time, it sounds better than no access at all, which is the option many kids are stuck with. Question is, should finite resources be devoted to this approach, or would they be better spent on other priorities? I’m not sure.

We had a long discussion about it in yesterday’s editorial board meeting, and it was inconclusive. We’ll have to return to it to decide what to say. Of course, we discussed other aspects as well. We’re all over the place on the culture-war aspect (to what extent kids not in the public system should have access), but I’d like to address here the underlying question of whether this is a good approach to begin with.

We’ve all experienced the misunderstandings that can occur in what was once called Cyberspace; this blog serves often as a monument to that effect. Of course, some of the misunderstanding is willfully obtuse, but plenty of it is honest miscommunication between people who would be much more likely to have a meeting of the minds if they actually met.

You sit two people who’ve been speaking at cross-purposes down together — as when Randy Page and I had lunch recently — and you’re somewhat more likely to communicate effectively. Similarly, if the problem is that a given subject, or a given child, is hard to teach, do you do any good giving him or her a "virtual" teacher?

Of course, if you want to address the choice aspect, go ahead — but know that I’m not staking out a position on that myself, not yet. If you can get private school and home-school kids in without pushing some public school kids out, I’m for it. It depends on how limited the device is in terms of accessibility. I need to know more about the program, and one of my colleagues is looking into that.

I’m hopeful that we can have a debate here that we can all learn from each other. On this recent post, Randy and LexWolf gave indications of a willingness to carry on real dialogue about this and possibly other education issues. That sounds great to me. Let’s see how we do.

A whole bag, just for you

As a public service, I’m going to elaborate more prominently upon what I just said at the end of a response to some comments

Some folks are unhappy with my increasing aggressiveness with people who are determined to make this blog into something that is the opposite of what I founded it for. I’m not going to let that happen, and I’m determined to convince you of that.

My whole purpose here is to provide an alternative to the hyper-partisan, bad-faith, yelling-past-each-other game that far too many people believe is political discourse. I’m certainly not here to play that game with you. You try to play it with me or anyone else here, and your comment will disappear.

If you don’t like that, go someplace else. Most of the blogosphere
is set up for just what you want to do. If you stay here, and don’t
change your habits… well, to quote Dr. Evil, "I have a whole bag of ‘Shhh!’ with
your name on it."

Mein Kulturkampf

Sheesh.

I post a juxtaposition of AP photos that struck me as amusing (given my belief that John Edwards is one of the phoniest faux populists ever to get his name in the papers), conveniently brushing over the ramped-up-by-24-hour-TV culture clash of the hour, and the very first commenter pounces all over it. Thus spake the ever-dependable "Ready to Hurl":

    Who should fire angry "Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League" for the following statements?
    “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity, in
general, and Catholicism, in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? I’m
not afraid to say it."…

Gee, I don’t know. Who pays him? Why do you ask me? For that matter, why do I care when a couple of li’l blogger gals spout the stuff they learned as college sophomores about the mean ol’ Catholic Church? (Talk about your simple faith. Miss Marcotte actually seems to believe Catholics tithe.)

Birds gotta fly; fish gotta swim. That’s what they do.

For awhile, I saved press releases from a group that paid a staffer to be righteously offended at every slight or perceived slight aimed at us Catholics. I was going to do a column about it. I was going to say that I had never previously knowingly belonged to a perpetually aggrieved group, and didn’t want anyone to presume to be indignant on my demographic’s behalf; that I saw identity politics generally as harmful; that I wished such folks would get over it. And so forth.

But I didn’t get around to it, and eventually the releases quit coming — from both the "Catholic League" and something called "Your Catholic Voice." So I forgot about it.

Maybe, if we just ignore Mr. Donohue and Misses Marcotte and McEwen, they’ll all just go away, too. But they probably won’t — and certainly not as long as anyone is willing to pay them to be the way they are.

Yet another reason to like McCain

Mccain

W
hile The State is chronicling the rather comprehensive S.C. support that John McCain has garnered (something mentioned on this blog in the past), Vanity Fair offers the following:

   In the 2000 campaign, (McCain) waded straight into the hottest controversy in South Carolina, not long before his crucial primary showdown with George W. Bush, by offering his unvarnished opinion on whether the Confederate battle flag — the Stars and Bars — should continue to fly over the state capitol. "As we all know, it’s a symbol of racism and slavery," McCain said. After John Weaver and others did more than whisper in his ear, McCain took to reading aloud from a piece of paper with a statement that began, "As to how I view the flag, I understand both sides," and went downhill from there.
    For better or worse, McCain’s campaign was never the same again. And no one is more aware of this than John McCain himself. In Worth the Fighting For, his second memoir, written with his longtime aide Mark Salter in 2002, McCain reflected on what he had done:

    By the time I was asked the question for the fourth or fifth time, I could have delivered the response from memory. But I persisted with the theatrics of unfolding the paper and reading it as if I were making a hostage statement. I wanted to telegraph to reporters that I really didn’t mean to suggest I supported flying the flag, but political imperatives required a little evasiveness on my part. I wanted them to think me still an honest man, who simply had to cut a corner a little here and there so that I could go on to be an honest president.
    I think that made the offense worse. Acknowledging my dishonesty with a wink didn’t make it less a lie. It compounded the offense by revealing how willful it had been. You either have the guts to tell the truth or you don’t. You don’t get any dispensation for lying in a way that suggests your dishonesty.

Everyone has sinned; everyone has fallen short of the mark. McCain gets my admiration by setting forth his faults in an unvarnished manner, and telling us — in a way that we can hold him accountable — that he considers them to be totally unacceptable.

Blog civility column

Making the blogosphere
safe for decent folk

    Lee and LexWolf are ruining your blog for everybody else. They… don’’t just disagree, but demean and ridicule all those who don’’t hold to their position. They… are blog bullies.
            –— "Herb"
    Trust me, Herb, when and if you ever come up with real arguments I will be sure to give them proper respect. So far arguments from your side are rather thin on the ground, if you catch my drift…
            –— "LexWolf"
    (E)xpecting civility on a blog where anonymity rules is a bit like expecting mud wrestling to be played under the same conditions as cricket.
            –— "VOA"

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
After more than a year of lively participation –— and in some cases "lively" should be read as a euphemism –— I wonder whether my Weblog is a useful forum. And if it isn’’t, what can be done to make it so?
    These may seem odd questions to ask regarding something to which I, and many of you, devote so much energy.
    How much energy? Well, since I started on May 17, 2005, I have written more than 600 times on that site. In the same period, I’’ve had 68 columns in the actual newspaper. Readers haven’’t been exactly watching the grass grow, either. Back here at the regular paper we have never received many more than 300 letters to the editor in a single week — including unpublishable scraps without signatures. In the seven days that ended June 16, there were more than 700 comments on my blog.
    We’’re talking a lot of activity here. A lot of heat. The question is, how much light?
    I’’ve noticed a disturbing trend in the comments lately. It’’s not that many of them are rude, dismissive, narrow-minded, combative and hostile to anyone who dares to disagree. I mean, many of them are all those things. But that’’s not the problem. That has been a factor since the first posts in May of last year. It’’s the nature of the medium.
    In the daily newspaper, we have a thing called "standards." Letters have to be signed. Writers have to be prepared for phone calls from us asking them to back up assertions of fact.
    On the blog, very few sign their full names. Add to that the fact that so far, I have deleted only one comment ever for being unacceptable. That one was grotesquely obscene. (Of course, I delete "spam" messages on sight.)
    This creates an atmosphere that some find, shall we say, liberating. And I don’’t mind that. Call me what you like. If you say something I haven’’t heard before, maybe I’’ll send you a nice prize.
    Here’’s what I am worried about: My less mature correspondents are running off the serious, thoughtful people who came to the blog hoping for the very thing I would like that venue to be — a place to exchange sincere, constructive ideas about the challenges facing South Carolina and the rest of the world.
    Lord knows we need a place like that. Check the "debates" in the Legislature, the Congress or on all those shouting matches on 24-hour cable TV "news." Where do most of those get us? Nowhere. Political parties, professional advocacy groups in Washington and closer to home, news directors who see themselves as entertainers, the Blogosphere itself and, yes, the pliable "mainstream media" have in a single generation dragged public discourse down to the point that it seems that a majority of us believe that public policy is about nothing deeper than scoring points with stupid, simplistic bumper-sticker quips.
    They make me want to hurl, and I am far from alone. Why do you think voter turnout and involvement is so pathetic?
    I have always wanted this page to be something better, and the blog was intended to augment that mission, not replace it in any way. The idea was to broaden the discussion, and share a lot of material that either I didn’’t have room for in the paper, or just wasn’’t ready for prime-time exposure as an editorial or column.
    You have responded, and I have been humbled and gratified by your participation — at least, by some of it.
    But now I’’m trying to figure out how to make that space more hospitable to the most thoughtful respondents, a place where they are greeted with respectful dialogue rather than low-minded derision. I’’m not talking hugs and kisses. I want the arguments lively, and no intellectual punches pulled. The childish stuff, however, needs to go.
    Here are my options, as I see them at this point:

  •     Require registration to leave a comment, with full names. Free people should stand behind their words.
  •     Let those who want to maintain their anonymity do so, but cull out the comments that I personally see as destructive.

    Of course, the best thing would be for everyone on the left, the right and the loony middle to learn how to be cool and play better with others. But if I have to be Daddy I will. And don’’t look at me like that, mister.
    People on the Blogosphere hate this kind of talk. But there are plenty of partisan blowoff sites for them to go to. I’’ve never made a secret of the fact that I’’d like this to be something more. And if I didn’’t know that some of you want it to be something more, I would have quit trying long ago.
    Anybody have any other ideas? Go to the blog, and speak up. I’’m going to give this process a couple of weeks before taking any overt action, drastic or otherwise.
    In the meantime, if you have visited the blog in the past and been discouraged, now is the time to come back and help me make the place safe for decent, law-abiding smart folk.
    If you haven’’t been there at all, what’’s wrong with you? The address is right here

Big Brother, we hardly knew ye

As time goes by, I get less and less comfortable with the culture in which I live.

This morning, got an unsolicited alert from the Realplayer folks inviting me to check out a link called "Big Brother live video feeds!"

I thought it was an Orwell reference (which, I suppose, in a tacky-distant-relative kind of way, it is — just not the way I was thinking). I figured maybe it was live feeds from one of those observation cameras so many communities have been putting up in public places. I thought it would lead me to a lively discussion between privacy advocates and those of us who are just fine with such augmentations of law enforcement capabilities.

Imagine my disappointment.

Hey, it’s not that I’m some sort of culture snob or anything. I hate opera, and I like action movies. Last night, I kept groaning because the womenfolk in my house wanted to watch some sort of "reality" show involving a dance competition, just when I was getting into a Firefly episode that I hadn’t seen before. I own the series on DVD, and have been making my way through it slowly. The ladies made the perfectly valid point that I could find out what happened to Capt. Reynolds later, so after griping for a few minutes, I just went to bed early.

We all have our tastes in junk. It’s just that the stuff I like gets canceled before it completes its first season (I will admit I only became a fan after the fact, when my son persuaded us to go see "Serenity"), and the gorram "reality" shows go on and on and on.

As Jayne would say, "Where does that get fun?"

Reflections on letters

Some reflections on letters in Saturday’s paper.

First, there was the one headlined, Grand Old Party is losing its way. My thoughts on it:
A person whose identity as a Republican reaches back to 1932 is bound to feel a bit lost, for a number of reasons. It is now the majority — or perhaps I should say, the plurality, party. (There are enough of us independents to keep either from being a majority, but I suppose you could say the Republicans are the majority among partisans, certainly here in South Carolina.) That means it has had to expand its membership beyond what it once encompassed. The letter mentions Glenn McConnell (unfavorably) and Mark Sanford (favorably). The two men are very different from each other, but united in two facts: They are both very libertarian, and it’s hard to imagine either of them fitting in with, say, Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon. Actually, it’s a bit hard to imagine Ike and Nixon being in the same administration. Anyway, my point is that people looking for consistency and reassurance in a party large enough to win elections are almost certain to be disappointed.

Here-and-now issues should determine vote:
This letter is related to the first, in that it illustrates the way that many Democrats are determined to keep their party the minority among partisans by rejecting certain lines of thought. Take for instance the writer’s dismissal the idea that ideals, or faith, might outweigh material considerations. Or at least, that they should not do so among practical, right-thinking individuals. But that’s not the really telling bit. What really points to the main fallacy among many (but not all) Democrats is the suggestion that right-thinking (i.e., socially concerned or liberal people) cannot choose the "moral path" of their fathers. Why on earth would concern about the direction of the country or current events be inconsistent with faith or a "belief system." Why can’t a person who is concerned  about the future still embrace the faith of his fathers? This writer seems to assume that traditional morality is utterly inconsistent with moving forward. Why so closed-minded? As long as supposed liberals think this way, they are doomed to failure.

Townsend did what he thought was right:
This writer says "Ronny Townsend worked tirelessly for the people he represented, for conservative values and for bettering public education." Exactly. A person who embraces conservative values would certainly be committed to serving and improving public education. It is a fundamental institution of our society, and one that is essential to building the kind of future that those who went before us envisioned. Anyone who would dismantle it, rather than protecting, strengthening and improving it, is a radical, leaning toward anarchy — anything but conservative.

Liberators not always what they seem:
Why would this writer believe that the idea that "there has always been a thin line between ‘invader/occupier’ and ‘liberator’ … was not considered three years ago?" It was and is to be expected that there is a delicate balance to be struck between such concepts. I certainly considered it, worried about it — still do. This is a short missive. Is the writer suggesting that those of us who favored the invasion must not have seen the inherent risks? Is he suggesting further that if anyone had seen the risks, the endeavor would not/should not have been undertaken? If so, I couldn’t disagree more. Those are merely reasons to proceed wisely — which certainly hasn’t always been done in this enterprise. I believe concern over that fact underlies this letter. But if leads the writer to conclude that it should not have been undertaken to begin with, or should be abandoned now, I have to disagree.

Feting Bernanke may be premature:
Why? So we don’t know whether he is a Greenspan or not? Why wouldn’t homefolks celebrate the fact that one of their own is the Fed Chairman. Seems sort of like a big deal in and of itself to me.

Accepting differences leads to better world:
One would be puzzled why someone would be compelled to write that "I am of the belief that God doesn’t hate." I mean, who isn’t? One would be further puzzled to read, "One day, I hope to find a community of faith that believes in love,
tolerance and acceptance. Maybe that is too much to hope for…" All true communities of faith believe in those things. They welcome sinners, and invite them to be penitent. The problem is that some do not wish to be penitent, and choose to characterize any suggestion that they should be as "hate." This is an obvious fallacy for anyone seeking a community of faith. It’s astounding how many people fail — or refuse — to see that.

Finally, Tests give teachers too little to go on:
OK, if you’re going to insist on standards being taught, why would you let teachers know what questions will be on the test that will measure whether they are teaching the standards. If you let them know the test, they would be able to — as many claim they already do — "teach to the test." It’s not about you improving test scores. It’s about teaching the standards. If test scores do improve, we’ll know how successfully you’re doing that. The letter presents one real reason for concern, when it suggests that students have seen "subject matter on tests that was not included in the standards." If so, something should be done about it. Of course, if the standard were not taught properly, the student would find the measuring test unfamiliar. So it’s difficult to tell from this missive where the fault lies.

Oscar and Ann Coulter

Man, I thought I’d never write a post with "Ann Coulter" in the headline — the wars of the ideologues interest me only to the extent that I sometimes find them morbidly fascinating. As in, "See, that’s what wrong with the country!"

I must have been in one of those moods, because I finally gave in to the fact that she had beenCoulter mentioned repeatedly in recent days in comments on this blog, and always in a context that suggested that everybody else but me knew why she was the subject of the day. You see, I’ve been sort of busy right here in South Carolina. In any case, I’ve never read anything by Ms. Coulter (does she mind being called that, by the way?). Nor have I seen her on the telly, but I’ll just bet she’s one of those shouting heads I don’t see because of not having cable.

Anyway, I Googled her (and is it OK if I say that?). And I’m guessing the reason folks are talking about her so much has something to do with this. She must have really gone over the line if the National Review is saying this about her:

Apparently, in Ann’s mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny…

Oops, no. I see that it must be something else, because that’s from way back in 2001. It must be this
— which I found on the old-fashioned wire service. If it was something else, perhaps y’all can enlighten me, if "enlighten" is the word.

But more interesting to me, and the only reason I am invoking the woman’s name, is that I clicked on her official site, and checked her archived writings. I immediately clicked on one of the more inflammatory-looking headlines, and found this. No, not the article — I didn’t read that. I’m talking about the little ad at the top, the one that says:

Republican Oscar Lovelace
The Next Governor of South Carolina
Mark Your Calendar, June 13 Primary

You click on it, and you get his Web site.

Interesting choice of an advertising venue. I would think there were better ones for reaching a South Carolina readership, but what do I know?

Creo que no hay problema

Many of the "burning issues of the day" pass me right by. And unfortunately, those are the very things that masses of readers want to talk about. I think maybe they get whipped up by television, which I don’t watch. Why don’t I watch it? Because it spends so much time on these issues.

It’s not that the issues are uninteresting per se; it’s that you’re expected to passionately assume one or the other idiotically exaggerated position. And if you don’t, you lose your audience. They can get more stimulation elsewhere.

Take the National Anthem in Spanish "issue." Please.

We have letters on "both" sides in today’s paper. (People always want to see "both" sides of every issue in the paper. As if there were only two.) Here’s the first:

Singing anthem in Spanish shows unity
    If the Gideons hand out a New Testament to you on a street corner, inside the front  cover you will find John 3:16, a verse at the center of the Christian faith, translated into dozens of languages.
    I’ve always thought this was wonderful — a potent reminder of the universality of faith and the unity of people.
    And yet now, we hear our president, among others, complaining about a Spanish-language version of the national anthem. This is embarrassing and shameful.
    Apparently, our attitude toward immigrants is “We stole this country first; now you can’t have any.”
    Given the number of anti-American slogans being shouted in foreign languages these days, I think it is wonderful to hear an expression of patriotism in Spanish. I would love to hear “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Arabic. Is it any wonder we are so unpopular in the world when we clutch our luxuries as Americans to our chests so covetously and with such anti-foreign bigotry?
ROGER KEANE
Columbia

Here’s the second:

Translating anthem changes its meaning
    Francis Scott Key wrote “The Star-Spangled Banner” because our flag and the men who fought under it withstood an all-night barrage of shelling from the British to protect their freedom at Fort McHenry. That should be enough not to change a word in the national anthem. If you change the language, it will lose its meaning in translation. If you change any of it, you have changed it all.
    Whether you are born here or come from another country to live and work, you are American; just American. You should be a legal, taxpaying, voting, English-speaking citizen and conform to America’s ways. Ways that have been proudly celebrated and revered by every voice that has recited the Pledge of Allegiance or sung the national anthem, in English.
    There are people among us who do not have the courage to take the right stand, putting us in these messes. They should be ashamed. If you do not like the way things are done, the way we speak, our national anthem or anything else concerning our patriotism, heritage or beliefs, then leave. If you stay, learn to respect the things that allowed you to come here in the first place, don’t change them.
DARRELL C. WATKINS
Bishopville

 

Here’s my problem relating to the first:
    Yeah, in a way, I suppose it is cool to see the Star-Spangled Banner translated into another language. It’s an interesting exercise. But I think this reader misses something: It’s not the same anthem. The translator didn’t want any stuff about "bombs" and "rockets," substituting the vague "fierce combat." And the second stanza is very different. Of course, I don’t remember the second stanza; I don’t think I’ve sung it since grade school. But somehow the idea of the anthem changing in translation is less than charming.
    I remember reading a well-put point in The Economist years ago. I wish I could find the specific quote. It was in one of their leaders, I believe, and it was explaining the difference in what it meant to be Japanese versus what it meant to be American. The first refers to a very specific racial, ethnic identity — in other words, in the eyes of Japan, your genes make you Japanese. All other foreigners — Koreans, Chinese, Americans, whatever — will forever be gaijin. To be an American, you essentially have to hold a set of ideas put forward by a bunch of guys of English descent in the 18th Century. You could be a little green man from Mars, and still become an American.
    Now, I’m not certain they said "English." Maybe it was European. Maybe there wasn’t even an ethnic reference at all, since the whole point was the universality of Americanism. But I remember it that way, because I’m acutely aware that the Founders started out insisting upon the rights that Englishmen enjoyed. They went beyond that, of course, but their sense of justice was grounded in English ideas.
    I don’t know how important that is — that one be able to read and think about the ideas in English. Maybe not at all. But it’s interesting that no other country has been more successful at forming a stable liberal democracy than the U.S., Britain, Australia and Canada. Other nations have had great success, but over what period of time? Look at that word "stable" again, and then look at the political histories of Italy, Spain, France and Germany (the Great Powers of Europe) over the past century.
Ultimately, I doubt these ideas HAVE to be expressed in English. But I don’t think it’s "shameful" toHimno_1 prefer a cherished anthem to be sung in the customary tongue.
    By the way, is there a reason that Puerto Rican singer Carlos Ponce is wearing a Union Jack as he sings the "Himno" at right? Probably not, but it is ironic.

Here’s my problem with the second:
    Despite what I just said, isn’t it a bit extreme to say that ANY change of any kind would be anathema? Basically, what that means is that you can’t translate the anthem into ANY language, even another European one (with their relative cultural similarities), because literal, word-for-word translations that don’t take idiomatic differences into account will always be, on some level, gibberish. And I think the letter-writer would agree with that. On the one hand, I think the letter-writer has a point — the anthem was written within a certain historic and cultural context, and that should be preserved. Of course, it’s a context that is largely lost on English-speakers in 2006, most of whom don’t know what the War of 1812 was about. And nobody is talking about erasing the English version, or replacing it. It’s just a rendition. So why should we be "ashamed" for tolerating it, for the brief time that it gets air play?
    Yes, I think I realize the emotional center for this writer. He finds it threatening to our culture. I don’t feel that way. Maybe it’s because I lived in South America as a kid, and once spoke Spanish as easily as English. It’s just not that alien-sounding to me. If everyone in America suddenly started speaking Spanish tomorrow, I would cope just fine. I’m no longer fluent (see my headline above, which may make no grammatical sense as far as I know), but I’m often surprised by how much of it is in my subconscious memory. A short period of total immersion would probably bring most of it back.
    I often suspect that the people who feel the most threatened by immigration from the South simply don’t speak or understand Spanish. I don’t think that’s all of it, but there would seem to be a correlation.
    I think another difference is that I don’t think English is in danger. Why? Because anyone that refuses to learn it within the foreseeable future will be left behind. They can make the choice, if they like, not to learn it, but that would be a huge mistake. And anyone who is incapable of learning it would probably be left behind, too — even more so than those who are limited to Ebonics or a thick Southern white accent. It’s an economic liability. But are we going to refuse those few incapable of learning a language the ability to make a living in their barrios, by insisting English be spoken (and sung) at every moment in every corner of the United States?
    Perhaps I’m a bigger cultural imperialist than that letter-writer, only I’m the more arrogant and confident one, because the things that worry him don’t worry me. I see people who want to succeed in China learning English, and hear people in India already speaking it, and I just don’t see it as in danger of extinction.
    So, I don’t see the "Himno" as anything to get all excited about, either to celebrate it or to fear it. It’s kind of like The Beatles singing "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in German. I just say, "That’s interesting," and move onto the next thing. Of course, maybe that’s because I haven’t bothered to study an English translation of "Deutshland Uber Alles." Maybe if I did, I’d start worrying.

Left, right, left, right

This started as a rejoinder in this comment thread, but it got so long I thought I’d make it a post. I was addressing one of my interlocutors, Phillip, as follows:

You’re touching on one of the many reasons I don’t like the terms "liberal" and "conservative." If words mean anything, "conservative" should refer to people who prefer the status quo; traditionally, those have been the ones who benefited the most materially from things as they were.

And yet, I sense a lot of class envy today among people who see themselves as conservative. At the same time, those who react negatively to the social agenda of elites on the coasts are in fact sticking up for traditional values, and therefore manifesting conservatism in a true sense.

Then let’s look at the term "neo-conservative," which a lot of people who call themselves "liberals" today use with a vehemence that suggest they think it means "REALLY conservative." Whatever they think, the ideology seems to offend them far more than the "paleo" conservatism of the Pat Buchanans, which is bizarre.

But what DOES the term mean? My first memory of hearing the term regularly was early in the Reagan administration. It seemed synonymous then with "survival of the fittest" economic libertarians — the Laffer Curve folks, the fans of voodoo economics.

Well, I knew I wasn’t one of those, so I figured the word referred to a bad thing.

Then, right at the turn of the century, everybody started using it to describe people who believed in using U.S. power to liberalize the world — a sort of muscular Wilsonianism, the kind of thing liberals used to believe in. It seemed to me that those folks were on the right track. It still does. (And yet Dave sees this position as evidence of my conservatism, while I see it as evidence of Bush outgrowing his reflexively conservative isolationism — no "nation-building" was to occur on his watch — into a more liberal position, at least on this point. What converted him? 9/11. It would have done the same with Bill Clinton, and perhaps with Gore. Actually, I’m not sure about Gore.)

Sort of related to that, another definition I’ve heard is that "neocons" are liberals who were alienated by the turn that "liberalism" took in the 1970s, toward identity politics and such.

So is a "neocon" even a conservative? I don’t know. Some of them are pro-choice, for instance, but I don’t think all are. There does seem to be a pattern in which they tend to be disdainful of social conservatism (which to me is the better half of modern "conservatism"), to some extent.

And what about "liberals?" What happened to the "bleeding heart" part? Oh, we hear a lot about the downtrodden, but it is an absolute must among today’s liberals that the most defenseless, dependent and powerless of us all — the unborn child — is not to be considered as an entity having legitimate interests. Yes, I know all the rhetoric about how this is necessary to help tragically helpless women in a bad situation. And such situations can be heartbreaking, and call upon anyone with a conscience to help. But that doesn’t change the fact that no matter how pitifully disadvantaged a woman is, she is still more empowered to determine her fate than the fetus that depends on her absolutely. How can one have compassion for one and not the other? Is it just that the first one can vote?

Why can’t we build a society that would affirm and help them both? I’ll tell you why — because we’ve split ourselves into camps of "liberal" and "conservatives" who refuse to listen to each other.

Well, I would go on, but this just makes me tired, and I have a column to write today. Thank goodness, it has nothing to do with any of this.

Hal makes a statement

I thought this was sort of interesting: I was sending a link to my last post to someone via e-mail, and in my note I referred to the straight majority using the shortcut "heteros."

Guess what the spell checker on Outlook wanted to change it to? "Haters." Actually, it suggested several alternatives (such as "heaters," "hereto," "meteors," "hectares," etc.), but that was its first choice.

So was the programmer of that tool trying to make a political statement, or did the boola-boola logic (or whatever in the world drives those things) just lead inevitably to that word? I believe it’s the latter, but I could see how some folks would suspect the former.

Could it be? Could Hal the devious laptop be trying to tell us all something? Nah.

Why “gay?” Why not “queer?”

Somehow, my last, brief post having fun with Mark Sanford’s reputation for frugality quickly led to a discussion between readers about whether Abraham Lincoln was gay. Don’t ask me how, just look and see if you don’t believe me. Such is the nature of blog comment threads.

Anyway, the discussion led me off on my own mental digression. I started thinking about words.

Lincoln_statues_1To begin with, I don’t believe there was anything "gay" about Lincoln, in any sense of the word. He was pretty much chronically depressed, as I recall.

Along those lines, have you ever considered what an odd euphemism "gay" is for "homosexual?" I’ve never liked it, and I don’t know why "gay" people do. First, I don’t see why anyone would associate unreserved felicity with any particular sexual orientation, much less one that carries so much painful stigma with it. To call people who carry that burden through their lives in this hetero world "gay" is to mock the pain that must, very often, certainly be their lot. Also, it seems insulting and dismissive to me. It’s like we’re calling them "giddy" or "silly," or in some other way dismissing them as unworthy of being considered seriously.

Why people would embrace it as a way to describe themselves is beyond me. It seems, if you will forgive the term, perverse. It’s as though one is declaring, "Look at me, I’m a silly person who fulfills all the stereotypes in your head — I just go gaily through life thinking of nothing but Judy Garland, decorating my home and clothes shopping." And maybe that’s what it’s about — defiant irony. But I don’t think it works.

To see how inadequate the term is, follow bill‘s suggestion and go to Andrew Sullivan’s blog. Check out the serious thoughtfulness with which he deals with issues. Is "gay" a proper term to use to describe him, simply because he is homosexual? It certainly isn’t the first word that would come to my mind.

Even if it is embraced ironically, "gay" just doesn’t make sense to me. (Of course, I have to admit that homosexuality doesn’t make sense to me either, so I guess my lack of understanding is to be expected.) I think those more "in-your-face" activists who defiantly use the term "queer" are more on the mark. The word makes sense from both hetero- and homo- perspectives. To straight people, homosexuality is queer, in the sense of being an aberration (certainly in the statistical sense, at the very least), and so alien to the way we think that it is beyond our ken. For homosexuals themselves, it seems to be a more effective banner to fly to demonstrate pride in being different — especially if you’re trying to be defiantly ironic.

Anyway, that’s the way the words strike me.

Are transvestites so bad?

This first struck me in reading Wednesday’s letters to the editor (if you follow the link, it’s the first letter), but when I saw the very same argument being made in a letter in today’s paper (in this case, the last one), I had to say something.

Both letters complain about our having run a Pat Oliphant cartoon making fun of all the hoo-hah overOliph_2 "Brokeback Mountain." For those too lazy to follow the links, here’s an excerpt from the first letter:

The comment from the “cowboy”: “Of course, they’re pearls, silly — what
else would I wear with basic black?” is what puzzles me. I know a
thousand gay men, including many in Darlington County, and not one of
them speaks this way, owns a set of pearls or has any interest in
women’s jewelry. That’s quite a slur.

It is?, I thought. Anyway, I set that aside until the Thursday letter, which in part said:

The cartoon appearing on the Saturday Opinion page regarding the harm
done to the cowboy image by the film “Brokeback Mountain” was a cheap
shot aimed at perpetuating insulting stereotypes of gay people.

Do you see the common thread (aside from the fact that neither writer is overly blessed with a sense of humor)? In both cases, the cartoon supposedly insults gay people by associating them with transvestites. This suggests that there’s something wrong with a man who wants to wear women’s clothing (or in this case, accessories).

This seems kind of judgmental to me. Did it seem that way to you?

This forced association of homosexuality and transvestism, which Mr. Oliphant is obviously using to ironic effect to mock the controversy (stereotypes are a fundamental part of the language of cartoons; the more absurd, the better), reminds me of a previous work of humor. I’m thinking of a particular sketch in Woody Allen’s "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But were Afraid to Ask)," the one titled, "Are Transvestites Homosexual?"

It certainly wasn’t the best bit in the movie. I vaguely recall Lou Jacobi being mildly amusing when, having snuck upstairs to the master bedroom, he pranced about in great delight wearing a dress belonging to his hostess. I don’t recall the putative question ever being answered, except that it seemed obvious that he was not supposed to be gay, but was a "regular guy" who got off on cross-dressing.

But that title, which I suppose came directly from the original book, seems in retrospect to contain a judgmental suggestion aimed not at transvestites (comical as they may presumably be), but at homosexuals. In "Are Transvestites Homosexual?," there’s a certain hint of, "Is there anything really wrong with transvestites?"

That was 1972 — well before it became unacceptable in Hollywood to suggest that there’s anything wrong about being homosexual. Much has changed since then. Today, we’ve got folks sticking up for homosexuals (defenders of tolerance, in other words) who call any suggestion of transvestism — even an ironic one — a "slur."

Is this progress?

Did I miss anything?

In spite of all the hype — something that usually puts me off and makes me choose to spend my time in other ways — I had intended to watch "The Book of Daniel" Friday night, and completely forgot.

What I want to know is, did I miss anything? I sort of suspect not. I see that The New York Times pretty much panned it. The reviewer was unbothered by the overdone dysfunctionality (and it’s really ridiculous, when you read a one-or-two-paragraph synopsis) of the characters or perceived mockeryDaniel of faith, but basically thought it just wasn’t very well done:

The real mark against "The Book of Daniel" is not any antipathy it
might show toward the family or sympathy for the devil. The real
objection is that it’s just not very good.

Only one thing had made me want to watch it. In the promo I saw on the boob tube, the title character is having a chat with Jesus, and complains, "Aren’t you supposed to comfort me?," to which an amused Christ replies, "Where did you read that?"

I liked the understanding that seemed to show of the concept that Christian faith is supposed to challenge us, not make us feel comfortable with ourselves.

Of course, I strongly suspect that was the best bit in the show — although I’ll wait until I have a chance to see it before assuming that’s true. That’s often the way with promos and previews. In fact, that was the case with the movie I watched on DVD Friday night instead of watching "Daniel."

That was "The Island," and the line that pulled me in — and unfortunately, by implication pretty much gave away the plot — was when Steve Buscemi said to Scarlett Johansson, "Well, excuse me, Miss I’m-So-Smart-I-Can’t-Wait-to-Go-to-the-Island." (At least, I think that’s what he said. I’ll check the DVD when I get home and correct as needed.)

Mr. Buscemi was good as always, and all things considered, it wasn’t a bad bit of escapist entertainment, once you accept that it’s little more than an updated version of "Logan’s Run" with higher production values.

But since I missed "Daniel" while watching it, help me out: What did y’all think of it?

Relative family values

Paul DeMarco, a potential charter member of the Unparty from Marion County, had the following to say in response to this post:

I do agree that more fairly allocating funds to poor districts like ours will help…

But there is no amount of money that can repair the disintegration
of the family. Many students in our district enter K-4 or K-5 already
so far behind they will never catch up and the most important single
factor holding them back is lack of a stable two parent family. If a
child spends his pre-school years in a single parent home he has been
handicapped in a way that is very difficult to overcome. My hat goes
off to the single parents who are doing their best to make it work but
we all know that two parents paddling in the same direction will take a
child farther than one.

This issue (the disintegration of the family, particularly in the black community) seems to be the elephant in the living room….

Why are we not focused on this issue? Is is something that people feel
is inevitable or simply too overwhelming to address comprehensively?

Later, Dave wrote:

Paul, You hit the nail right on the head but you will never see the
State publish (in print) what you just wrote. We all know that one of
the reasons, if not the main reason, that this problem cannot be solved
is that if someone acknowledges the true problem, then you will be
attacked by the race-baiters. As a result, we as a society peck away at
symptoms of the problem, while politely ignoring the cultural
dysfunction inherent in many black families. Keep in mind there is a
major political party, called Democrats, who give lip service to fixing
the problem, but in reality it is in the Democrats interest to have a
huge voting block living on the welfare plantation….

Paul, demonstrating the sort of lively debate we’d be likely to have at Unparty meetings, came back with:

Brad,

How do you respond to Dave’s complaint that the State is too timid
about identifying single-parent families as a major source of society’s
woes.
Also, it seems to me that on this and other issues our focus should be
on trying to come up with viable solutions/interventions rather than
simply debating.

After all that — and partly because that thread is scattered through a 36-comment conversation among multiple parties, meaning that lots of folks might miss it — I thought I’d respond in a separate post, as follows:

Paul,

The issue isn’t whether The State is "too timid;" it’s whether there’s a public policy issue to be addressed. In the conventional sense, there’s not. But once you start talking about the state getting into pre-K development, you are into unconventional territory. So let’s explore it.

Up to now, our concern has been what to do with the reality that faces our public schools: There are children out there with only one or no parents — or parents who don’t give a damn about them or their education — and what are we going to do about those kids? We can rant all we want about how that shouldn’t happen, but it does, and it’s not the kids’ fault. So we end up about where Judge Cooper did — we need to do something to help those kids whose parents have failed them. It’s the well-established principle of the state acting in loco parentis under extreme circumstances.

But if you’re talking about acting to prevent such situations from arising, you’re getting into areas that give the civil libertarians fits (which, come to think of it, might be enough reason to go there in and of itself). Are we going to license reproduction … outlaw bastardy … make the term "illegitimate" true to its Latin root, as in "not lawful?" What would be the penalties for the inevitable breaches? And what would you do with the children who are the products of such illegal activity? Actually, that brings us back to where we already are…

Personally, I’m for going the non-governmental route and simply resurrecting shame as a salutary force in our society. I’ve been for that for a long time. My being for it, though, hasn’t done much to stem the tidal wave of shamelessness I see washing all around me.

Maybe we should make shame a plank in the Unparty platform. What do you think?

Jumping the gun

The sides in the culture war that is smothering America’s judicial selection process couldn’t wait to get started fighting over the nomination of Samuel Alito. The sooner you attack, the sooner the other side attacks back, the sooner everybody gets really ticked off, and the more money you can raise, so you can pay your advocacy group’s staff, so you can keep on attacking, so … well, you getAlito2_1 the idea.

Anyway, the prize for being the first out of the gate this time — judging by nothing more reliable than my e-mail — was the ever-feisty People for the American Way. President Bush announced his new nomination at 8 a.m. The "American Way" folks couldn’t wait that long. My first release from them came in at 7:58. Either that, or 6:58. (I’m not sure whether my e-mail had switched over to standard time yet, since my desktop didn’t ask my permission to make that move until a couple of hours later.)

Anyway, the release proclaimed, in all capitals,

BUSH PUTS DEMANDS OF FAR-RIGHT ABOVE INTERESTS OF AMERICANS WITH HIGH COURT NOMINATION OF RIGHT-WING ACTIVIST ALITO

No point in throat-clearing or small talk. Might as well get to screaming right off the bat.

The same group weighed in again a couple of hours later. It wasn’t until a few minutes after that that the second party was heard from. At 10:04, Jim DeMint declared that:

Judge Alito is one of the most respected judges in America. His constitutional credentials are unquestionable and his judicial philosophy is verifiable…. In 1990, Judge Alito was unanimously confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate because he commanded respect across party lines. Now that he has been nominated to the Supreme Court, I hope Democrats will resist the temptation to obstruct the process and deny him an up-or-down vote. Judge Alito is a dignified man and he deserves a dignified process. He deserves a fair hearing and a fair vote. People in South Carolina and across the nation want a judge who will carefully listen to the arguments in each case and make thoughtful decisions. Americans want a judge who will strictly interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. We have a critical confirmation process ahead of us and I am confident Judge Alito will clearly demonstrate his qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court.

Then, at 11:30 came a piece headlined:

Christian Coalition of America Praises the Nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court.

It went on to quote CCA President Roberta Combs as saying, "President Bush has hit a homerun with this nomination."

Then, at 12:02, The American Civil Liberties Union got the opposition back up on the scoreboard with one headlined, "ACLU Urges Senate to Explore Supreme Court Nominee Alito’s Record on Reproductive Rights, First Amendment." On that side of the Kulturkampf, "reproductive rights" is seen as rolling off the tongue more smoothly than the simpler "abortion." Don’t ask me to explain.

Being a moderate, Lindsey Graham didn’t hit me with a release until 1:27 p.m. (He said that John Roberts hit a home run. But since I have yet to see instant replays on either of these taters, I’m waiting until the official score is posted.) But he made up for his tardiness at 5:58 with a breathless anouncement that the senator would be meeting with Mr. Alito on Tuesday.

And that’s just the start. There’s plenty of action to come, sports fans.