I do not think that word means what you think it means

We’re having a fairly lazy sports-filled Sunday (Illinois basketball and then football playoffs) after a busy Saturday. We went out to eat with Shane and Matt, then headed over for a show at the Morris Center (a Vegas show, The Rat Pack, made its way to South Bend, and it was fantastic), and had a nightcap with them at South Bend Chocolate Cafe. Good times!

While all this was going on, Notre Dame’s men’s basketball team was in the process of defeating the #1 team (20-0 Syracuse), a game that we had tickets to but sold so we could go see The Rat Pack show. Argh! I never wished so much that I had a clone! We were both a little bummed that we weren’t there for the big game, but we enjoyed our evening out and have no regrets.

Newt Gingrich was also busy beating the pants off his opponents (try not to dwell on that image too long) in South Carolina. I’m rather delighted by this outcome, because it means that the Republicans are in complete disarray, and currently many in the base are breaking for Gingrich. Newt Gingrich. It just boggles my mind. Apparently his debate performance Thursday night garnered him a whole bunch of last-minute support from the evangelical base in SC, which also boggles my mind. In discussions with some of my like-minded friends, we speculated that they are digging his belligerence because they think he can really put President Obama “in his place” (which I happens to think is in the White House) in a debate. I guess that whole electability thing doesn’t worry them too much, or Newt’s extremely negative favorability rating, or that he was forced out as Speaker of the House, or that he paid a $300,000 ethics fine, or...well, you get the idea. The guy’s got baggage the size of a small country. No, they just want to see a smackdown in a debate between Gingrich and the President. My mind is still boggled.

[Sidenote: Newt, shut up about your stupid “Lincoln-Douglas style debates” already. If, by some bizarre chance, you end up being the nominee, you’ll get your chance to debate the President, but you don’t get to dictate the terms. The thought of listening to this bloviating garbanzo bean (as columnist Frank Bruni famously called him) ramble on for hours makes my head hurt and my stomach churn. He’s like the hangover of the Republican party...without the previous night’s fun.]

Newt fired them up at the debate with his attack-dog response to moderator John King’s question about his marital woes, and his second wife’s assertion that he asked her for an open marriage. (I won’t go into details, but you can watch the clip here if you haven’t heard about it.) How DARE anyone ask him such a question?! (It reminded me of Will Ferrell yelling “You don’t talk to me like that!” to his family in a skit. I wonder if Newt drives a Dodge Stratus?) You know why John King dared to ask it, Newt? Because you pretended to be some sort of highly moral person when you were leading the impeachment effort against President Clinton, all the while in the midst of a long term affair with a congressional staffer. It’s your hypocrisy that we hate most. Because of that, it was a legitimate question. The way he turned the outrage around and made himself a victim was a sight to behold. The arrogance and self-righteous indignation just oozed out of him.

Anyway, in Newt’s blistering attack on King, he scolded the entire “elite media” for engaging in such tactics, and accused them of protecting President Obama by attacking conservatives. I think that is absurd, but what I want to focus on here is the constant use lately of the word “elite.”

Elite media, liberal elite, east coast elites, Hollywood elites...you name it, they’re tossing around the word left and right (so to speak!). I think it goes without saying that this is a insulting term for them. It seems to be a code word for “not like us.” In other words, all those elites look down on you and think you’re stupid, but hey, I’m not an elite, I’m just like you! (Kindly ignore that part about Newt’s PhD in history, and his million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s, okay? Thanks.)

I am bothered that this has become a bad word to a certain portion of the population. The Free Dictionary defines ‘elite’ as:

1. a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: "In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them" (Times Literary Supplement).
b. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.

This is not a derogatory term, folks. I would hope that anyone who has a job would strive to be among the elites of their profession; this seems a desirable thing to me, rather than a scornful epithet. In my daily dealings, I would love to be able to encounter the elite of those providing service to me, whether it’s a grocery store clerk, a mechanic, or the radiologist reading my mammogram. Elites are good, by their very definition: they are good at what they do. The right wing seems to be portraying them as some sort of foppish dandies who look down their noses at the common people. A clever bit of spin, but highly inaccurate.

Personally, I would like my politicians to be more than a little elite. Not in a monetary sense, but I definitely want the best and brightest leading our country and drafting our laws and deciding our court cases. The next time someone calls you an “elite,” I suggest thanking them for the compliment and for their high regard of you. Maybe it will make them go home and look the word up so they understand exactly what it means and why you didn’t take it as an insult.

Bewitched, bothered, and bewildered

I suppose I need to write at least one post about the latest teabagger to grace the political stage: Christine O'Donnell.

I don't really want to, because she's so mind-bogglingly ridiculous, but because she could possibly become one of our United States Senators, I feel that I must.

Much has been made of her "I dabbled in witchcraft" statement of twenty-some years ago, but coming from a person raised in a fundamentalist church, I recognize that for the silliness that it is. Based on the fundamentalist viewpoint about witchcraft, the extent of her "dabbling" could have consisted of using a Ouija board. In that sect of faith, everything from gambling to rock music to R-rated movies can be considered flirting with satanic disaster. (Molly Hatchet just sprang to mind.)

So as far as her comments that she dabbled, I don't make too much of it, and I really don't care. Both Wiccans and Satanists have ridiculed her statement, saying that she was not one of them. Frankly, the whole thing has become laughable.

However, what bothers me about this woman (and about so many of the teabaggers...not all, but most) is this particular fundamental Christian outlook and approach to life. That is the religious outlook that I was raised in, and I ran...I ran so far away...and I did so for a reason.

O'Donnell speaks of dabbling in witchcraft; she speaks of masturbation being wrong; she speaks of condoms causing AIDS; she speaks of evolution being a myth and thinks it is a valid argument to wonder why we don't see monkeys today evolving into humans.

All of these claims bear a closer look, because this sort of thinking is indicative of a closed mind and a desire to evangelize. More about that in a moment.

I already mentioned the witchcraft thing. I grew up being taught that rock music and R-rated movies were of the devil. I recall several books and several sermons at church that dissected rock songs and gave details about why they were satanic. Everything from Alice Cooper (a band and persona named after a 17th century witch, and the disgustingly evil song "Only Women Bleed," which these books hysterically proclaimed was about *gasp* menstruation...actually, it's about domestic abuse, dumbasses) to Led Zeppelin singing "Gonna give you every inch of my love" was considered an ungodly and therefore satanic influence. The viewing of movies like "The Exorcist" was claimed to invite demonic possession. The same with seances or playing with a Ouija board. I grew up hearing that if something didn't glorify God, it was not to be listened to because it was a bad influence. Even Halloween was a night when demons ran rampant, just looking for a vulnerable soul to possess. I'm not kidding.

As far as masturbation, what planet is this broad living on? Humans are sexual beings, and it is natural and healthy to figure out how parts work! The suppression of these natural urges was another guilt trip laid on by religion; giving in to such urges also invited demonic possession.

Are you sensing a pattern here?

O'Donnell says that condoms cause AIDS. No, you dim bulb, a VIRUS causes AIDS. Condoms help prevent the transmission of the virus. Yes, of course, we can try to change behavior; but expecting people to not have sex is the height of idiocy. (See above: humans = sexual beings.)

Evolution is not a myth. It is accepted as fact by the vast majority of the scientific community based on fossil evidence, carbon dating, and most recently, DNA analysis. Monkeys did not and do not evolve into humans; we shared a common ancestor and our branches diverged thousands of years ago. This is a common misconception (and in many cases, a deliberate misrepresentation) when it comes to evolution. It is not a straight stick, taking us from apes to humans...it is a tree with many branches.

What bothers me about O'Donnell and her ilk is twofold. First, there is what I would call Fruit Fly Syndrome. Yes, I know I go on and on about this, but I think it's a perfect illustration of the lack of intellectual curiosity in some people currently in the political sphere. During the 2008 election, Sarah Palin gave a speech in which she spoke derisively about funding for "fruit fly research in Paris, France." Fruit flies are one of the basic research tools used in science, and they still provide valuable information. Shortly after her speech, a paper was published in which the researchers wrote of their isolation of a gene from fruit flies that looked to be connected to autism in humans. Kind of important, eh? And it's entirely possible that the facility in Paris, France (said so dismissively by Palin) was the Pasteur Institute, one of the most prestigious and important research facilities in the world.

I am truly dismayed by this sort of anti-intellectualism that is being embraced by the teabaggers. Theirs is a world in which everyone doing scientific research is an elitist. Anyone with an education from a premier university is an elitist. Anyone who makes them feel that they are inadequate is an elitist. And anyone who questions their facts and logic (or lack thereof) is most definitely an elitist. This is exactly what we don't want to be doing now. We need to encourage scholarship and advanced education rather than ridiculing it. I have been ridiculed for having a college education, portrayed as some sort of know-it-all with a "fancy" college degree. (Shane and I still laugh about the whole "fancy" designation, and love to insert that word into normal conversation as often as we can.) O'Donnell's question about why monkeys aren't evolving into humans shows a very profound lack of intelligence concerning evolution, and I suspect that her religion dictates that she not question the fundamentalist party line concerning the subject. After all, actually learning more about the subject might lead to further questions, which might lead to doubt, which might lead to a rejection of dogma and fairy tales.

The other thing that bothers me about O'Donnell is something I've written about previously. It's obvious that these types have an agenda and want to force their version of religion onto the rest of us. They love to talk about freedom of religion, but that seems to apply only to their own religion--not anyone else's, and certainly not anyone who doesn't believe or actually subscribes to that whole separation of church and state thing! Newt Gingrich called for the federal government to legislate that Sharia law will never happen here. Oklahoma wants a similar state law. This is ludicrous. Who the fuck is trying to institute Sharia law here?? No one! But people like Palin, O'Donnell, and their like-minded fans seem to have no problem with insertion of their own religion onto the national stage, and think we'd be better off if we did so.

Theocracies are not limited to the Muslim religion. There are people here who wish to institute a theocracy, one of their own choosing. We do not operate that way, and we cannot let them dictate policy based on their religious beliefs. That would be a true perversion of our Constitution...the one that they claim to love so much. We can't let them get away with it.

Sarah Palin talkin', and just DON'T do it!

I was happy I got my Christmas cards done today. When I told Ken, he (jokingly) said, "Wow, you really got an early start!" As soon as I said what I did, I realized that it didn't sound quite right. "Doing my Christmas cards" meant that I took all the Christmas cards we got this past Christmas and cut them up into gift tags. What I couldn't use, I put into recycling. It's a great way to use your cards, and it will be a nice reminder of family and friends when I wrap gifts next year! Get creative, too. Remember there are often little logos on the backs of cards, so just put the holiday logo in the lower corner, and hey presto! You've got a nice little gift tag. There were some cards that I got 6 tags out of! And some cards were so pretty that I was able to use the entire front, and I can put those on large presents. Give it a try--I guar-ohn-tee you'll never have to buy another gift tag!

I've mentioned Sarah Palin's most recent interview, this time with a guy named John Ziegler. I'm not familiar with him, but he is a conservative something-or-another (writer? blogger? radio personality? I don't know, and don't care enough to investigate further.), and he has a website titled How Obama Got Elected. When I went to the blog, there was the picture of Obama by artist Shepard Fairey, except Ziegler had added a halo to it. That told me all I needed to know. I'll preface the rest of this entry by saying that I've made no bones about my utter disdain for and dislike of Sarah Palin, and I gave up trying to be kind shortly before the election, when she disrespected fruit flies. I'm not going to be kind here, either--not by a longshot--so if you choose not to read this, I'm cool with that and will not be offended. You have been fairly warned.

The title of Ziegler's documentary for which he interviewed Palin is called "Media Malpractice," so it obviously takes the position that Palin was unfairly treated by the media. (By the way, I'm not going to link to Ziegler's site, because it almost locked up my computer. You can Google it or search on YouTube for excerpts from the interview.) Palin is on her "unfair treatment" like mud on a pig, and although she previously said she got a real kick out of Tina Fey's portrayal of her, she now says that both Fey and Katie Couric "exploited" her candidacy, and that "says a great deal about our society." WTF? What exactly does that say about our society? That we like political satire, and that news anchors like to interview political candidates? How dare they?!

Palin went on to say that the press treated her harshly because of her background. Personally, I saw none of that, although she and McCain often spoke of the "liberal elite media," and "liberal elites," who McCain said live in the fine cities of Washington, D.C. and New York City. Seems to me that her alleged harsh treatment was more of an insecurity problem, i.e., she herself felt inferior, so was quick to attack others for their "uppity ways." She even spoke of the question asked by Couric about the newspapers she reads (and Palin's infamous answer), and says that she found the question offensive, and felt that Couric was implying that people in Alaska don't read. "To me the question was more along the lines of, ‘Do you read, what do you guys do up there, what is it that you read?’" If she read that Couric was implying Alaskan ignorance with that question, that tells me more about Palin and her insecurities and paranoia than anything else. I know people like that in my life, and it's pretty obvious when someone has an inferiority complex.

Palin really didn't care for Fey's line (when Fey was portraying Palin in the VP debate skit, in response to a question about gay marriage), "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." Palin commented, "The mama grizzly rises up in me, hearing things like that. Here again, cool, fine, come attack me. But when you make a suggestion like that that attacks a kid, it kills me."

I'll admit to laughing at the line in the skit, but I am not laughing about the fate of Bristol Palin, nor am I laughing about her future. I honestly feel sorry for that kid and her boyfriend and their child, and if I've ever sounded like I'm attacking them, that was not my intention (but I still think Tripp is a silly name). What infuriated me about the whole thing is that Palin is an advocate of abstinence-only education, and my question is still, "How's that workin' for ya?" A recent study shows that abstinence-only education does not work. I urge you to take a look at the graphs in the study: they show statistically identical results for those who received abstinence-only sex education and those who did not. However, those who pledge abstinence are less likely to use birth control and protection. I know it's a noble goal to promote abstinence, and I applaud any kid who decides to wait, and I applaud the parents who are able to get a kid to make that decision. But I believe that it is wrong to teach only abstinence, because hey--have we collectively forgotten what it's like to be a teenager with raging hormones?! Forewarned is forearmed, people, and I would much rather any kid of mine--kids in general, for that matter--be conscientious about the consequences of unprotected sex, rather than block them from access to birth control, protection, and knowledge! Why are some people still stuck in that rut that knowledge is dangerous? Knowledge is POWER.

Palin also wasn't happy with McCain's campaign, because after her first poor performance in an interview with Couric, she realized that it didn't go well, but the campaign gave the go-ahead for a couple more sessions. Sorry, Palin, but I remember at that time that you were virtually inaccessible to the media, and it was getting to the point where you had to give interviews, otherwise the media was going to get royally pissed. For a while, weren't you pissed that the campaign wasn't allowing you to give interviews? Which way is it? The fact is that you were woefully unprepared, both for interviews and for the vice-presidency, so I have no sympathy for you, the campaign, or McCain. He made the decision and the offer, you accepted. End of story.

The comment that really made me laugh was when she was talking about the Couric interviews, she said, "Katie, you’re not the center of everybody’s universe." Wow, nice job. Way to win friends and influence people--piss off a national news anchor. Here's a news flash, Palin: if you want to be part of the national scene in politics, you are going to face much tougher interviewers than Katie Couric. Couric was asking simple questions, and you couldn't handle it. Couric was not acting like she was the "center of everybody's universe," she was doing her job.

Ziegler said that he enjoyed his interview with Palin, and that anyone who thinks she is "stupid" is seriously misinformed. I've never thought she is stupid. I wouldn't say she's particularly smart, and would be more likely to say she is..."unstupid." I think she's a canny politician, and has a knack for seeing which way the wind is blowing. I do, however, think she is willfully ignorant. As I've written before, she is intellectually incurious, and anything that doesn't make sense in her world she deems as being of no consequence to anyone else. If you wonder why I'm still writing about this woman, it's because she keeps putting herself out there. Meanwhile, John McCain has kept a low profile and has quietly gone back to doing his thing in the Senate. Palin seems to be aiming for national office, and as long as she does so, I'll keep aiming for her...with words only, obviously.

Hey! I made you guys a present!

Don't say I never did anything for you! (wink)

It's not perfect, but I had some fun making it today. Hope it gave you all a chuckle. And if you'd really like to snag it, feel free. I'm thinking of resizing it and putting it by my Trekkies for Obama button. Ha ha!

I'm not going to beat the fruit fly thing to death, but it did get me thinking a lot today. (Uh oh....) As I told Indigo, last night I had steam coming out of my ears, but I'm a little more reflective today. Before I got up this morning, I was thinking about what it is that bothers me so much about not just Palin, but the general tone of the GOP's campaign lately. The word that sprang to mind was "incurious," and when I read my comments, my friend Dan-Guido had remarked that Palin isn't "intellectually curious." We both had the same thought, but I definitely like his phrase better!

That's something that is really bothering me lately. It's not just the recent GOP tactics of portraying anyone with a college degree, or anyone who dares to show a broader knowledge of issues and a broader world view, as someone who is "not one of us," it's the general pervasiveness of anti-intellectualism. The campaign keeps throwing out that word "elite." The liberal elite...the Washington elite...it seems that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do, or shows a desire to look beyond the superficial meaning of things, is somehow "elite."

I'm not sure when a thirst for knowledge became something to be ashamed of. This was something that was fostered in me and my sisters by my parents, and encouraged in Ken by his father, and by his mother in her love of reading. Palin's ridicule of fruit fly research in Paris, France (and I do wonder if she was referencing the Pasteur Institute) was cringe-worthy. Did she or her handlers not bother to do at least minimal investigation as to how something like that might be important? Google "fruit fly research," for Pete's sake, and you'll turn up all kind of references as to how these tiny insects have aided scientists in numerous research efforts and countless studies. It is not something to take lightly, and it disturbs me that she seems patently unable to understand that.

Palin strikes me as someone whose world view is so narrow that she simply cannot comprehend why something that makes no sense to her whatsoever might be important to someone else. If it doesn't exist in her world, it's not worth learning about and it's not important. This is not just about the campaigns and those involved with them; I've seen it in people I encounter in daily life. A feeling that someone who is curious about the world around them is somehow pretentious, or a know-it-all, or "putting on airs." There is nothing wrong with a healthy curiosity about a variety of subjects, and it's an admirable goal to want to further your education. Not everyone is able to do this, but that doesn't mean that learning has to stop. It didn't stop for my parents, although they didn't go to college.

I'm also disturbed by the fact that Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin's baby, has dropped out of high school in order to get a job in the oil fields. I'm not mad about it, I'm not self-righteous about it, I'm not condemning anyone for their decision...I just find it really sad that the kid (and yes, he IS a kid) is not finishing high school. I wonder what kind of life they will have, and I hope that he is able to at least eventually get his GED.

The narrow-mindedness I've been encountering lately boggles my mind. The inability to see a broader world view is not only sad, it's dangerous. I know it's not easy to step outside our comfort zone, but it's imperative that we begin to do so, and try to understand that we are not the center of the world, anymore than the Earth is the center of the solar system, as so many once thought. (Copernicus got a raw deal, didn't he?) I had an email this morning from one of my uncles about a forward he'd gotten concerning alleged quotes from Obama's books. My uncle said that he knew I'd read the books, and he wanted to know if these quotes (mostly concerning race) were real...and if so, didn't I find them scary? I wrote back that one suspicious thing was that no page numbers were provided, that I thought that they were taken out of context, and that some of these quotes rang a bell, so I did a Snopes search. Sure enough, the exact email he sent me has been widely circulated, and the quotes were either out of context, rearranged, or were not Obama's words at all. My 80-some year old uncle cared enough to ask me if it was true. Why are others not investigating what is truth and what is lies?

But again, this transcends politics, although Palin's lack of intellectual curiosity (thanks, Dan!) is what got me to think along these lines. This is about an inability to take "one step beyond," and to realize that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. The attitude of ridiculing someone for furthering their education, or for pursuing research that you have deemed laughable, is not being "salt of the earth." It is foolish and dangerous.