Politics – Page 2 – HystericallyBored

2024-05-24

The Traditional

My response to this column in the NY Times by Ross Douthat.

“a mechanism to constrain sexual misbehavior that’s more effective than the traditional emphasis on monogamy and chastity.” I like how you sneaked in there the phrase “the traditional”, as if this was some kind of monumental edifice of unquestioned provenance. As if it was not a social mechanism for the control of women’s bodies by patriarchal “authority”. A social mechanism inevitably dispensed with for themselves by privileged men in power. Whether you personally or not love Donald Trump, your side owns him and you could not invent a more ragingly hypocritical avatar of “traditional” values.

2024-05-23

Free Speech at the ACLU

Really, really disappointed to read this account of the ACLU’s firing of an employee for using language that in some subtle way– too subtle for most of us to grasp– implied a racist attitude.

In one instance, according to court documents, she told a Black superior that she was “afraid” to talk with him. In another, she told a manager that their conversation was “chastising.” And in a meeting, she repeated a satirical phrase likening her bosses’ behavior to suffering “beatings.”

There are multitudes of progressive organizations out there ready to attack anyone who dares oppose their advocacy of nothing but rainbows and flowers for those of minority sexual preferences or racial identity. The ACLU, until now, has been generally willing to fight for everyone’s right to speak truthfully even when expressing unpopular opinions. But the entire story about the firing of Kate Oh over statements that only in the mysterious realm of paranoid ultra-sensitivity constitute any kind of racial animus is truly discouraging. It’s not about a weird deviation from their core values. It’s about the corporate culture at the ACLU becoming mind-numbingly parochial.

One of the things I had always liked about the ACLU– and which I agree with wholeheartedly– is that unpopular speech has a right to be heard. And then mocked and ridiculed, if necessary, but heard. And the mockery and ridicule itself must be protected. When a university bans a speaker because they are not politically congenial with the culture of the administration and faculty, we all lose, even if we hate the speech. Let them speak. If they are idiots, we can let them know after we know what they are actually saying.

But– this is important– please take care to note when these speakers are not actually banned (as Anne Coulter claimed to have been from a Canadian University) but merely playing the martyr for their home-town crowd. Conservatives seem to adore this trope and play it for all it’s worth in their own media echo-chambers.

I am even opposed to “hate-speech” and “hate-crime” designations. Either it is a crime or it isn’t. “Hate” is an entirely subjective pejorative. Inciting violence is a crime. Libel is a crime. Fraud is a crime. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre can be a crime. But making something a “hate” crime is being a nanny.

2024-05-232024-05-23

Harrison Butker’s Beautiful Nobody Wife

Someone on Facebook posted this, in response to the ridiculous controversy over the speech made by football player Harrison Butker of the Kansas City Chiefs to the graduates of Benedictine College in Atchinson, Kansas.

Oh no, a catholic gave a pro catholic speech with catholic views to catholic students at a catholic school, the horror, the misogyny, the… idiots love to go out of their way to be offended. The same crowd that preaches acceptance cannot stand living in a world where other people aren’t like them apparently

I responded:

Agree. The same way a male state legislator with no medical training or background and expertise in psychology or physiology should not be telling parents what they can or cannot do to address a child’s issues with sexual identity. Nor should the same state politicians be telling libraries what books they can stock on their shelves. Or if people who are fearful of communicable diseases can wear a mask. Or if teachers can teach about the fundamentals of the U.S. economy before 1865. Idiots love to go out of their way to be offended.

I initially thought the entire “scandal” was just media masturbation: a trivial event and a trivial offense sparking trivial outrage and then trivial blow-back, and so on, with everyone losing sight of the utter triviality of the original event along the way. Harrison Butker is a nobody, a fucking football player, of no particular consequence, and certainly of no importance to culture or intellectual life in the U.S.

His comments were not as anodyne as his defenders would have it, nor as caustic as his critics would have it. They are just unbelievably mediocre. Seriously? In this day and age? Women should stay home and cook and clean and have babies?

He says:

On the day before Mother’s Day, he said, “I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.

I can’t think of anything more deeply insulting to Isabelle. You had no life before you met the wondrous Harrison Buttkiss? You were not a whole person, because this amazing, virile, intelligent, paragon of testosterone had not yet laid you?

He went further, attacking diversity and inclusion in general, gay marriage, and so on– the usual litany of ignorant white male grievance. He attacked abortion, which is odd because his party has left him in the dust on this issue. Have you checked with Mike Pence lately? And what other bedrock principles are you and your party eager to shed the moment they become politically inconvenient?

Shame on you Benedictine College! Not because Butkisser gave you a mind-numbing divisive grievance-laced litany of intellectual dishonesty, but because you chose an athlete of mediocre intelligence to give your graduation address. Someone who is famous for one-dimensionality, or achievements in the stupidest, dullest major sport in the world. Please– the entire secular, consumerist, celebrity-addled world worships these masters of inanity. Can’t a college — especially a Catholic Christian College– stand up and say, we will be different! We will not kowtow to the worldly vice of idolization of professional athletes and materialistic success! No, we will invite someone with real achievements in really important, consequential areas, like literature, journalism, painting, music, engineering, science, social services, or perhaps even ministry.

But then the administration of Benedictine College wouldn’t get to go home and tell their wives and mommies, “Guess I got to meet?” and really impress them.

2024-05-01

Trial by Innuendo

To any casual observer, Mr. Weinstein’s history of accusations of abuse seems as though it should be admissible, and yet it was not. NY Times (here)

A New York Times reporter is appalled that the conviction of Harvey Weinstein of rape was overturned. I am not.

At the time of his conviction, I was rather shocked that the court allowed numerous women–who were not the victims in the case– to testify that Weinstein had treated them very badly. I don’t doubt that he did. I also think it’s likely he was guilty of rape and I would not have been displeased to see him convicted of it in a fair trial. But what the prosecution did was unethical and unfair. They lined up numerous witnesses who all agreed that Weinstein was an asshole. Then they essentially said– “see what a horrible person he is? He must also be guilty of rape.” Of course, they used artful language to make it sound more sophisticated than that. They said it showed a “pattern” of behavior, an MO, that corroborated what the actual victims experienced.

I don’t think it’s even close. That was an indefensible tactic and both sides knew it and most informed observers were certainly aware of it. The prosecution thought, well, this is special. It’s a new era. It’s “me too”. The justice system should change to accommodate this new sensibility.

None of those additional witnesses laid charges against Mr. Weinstein. All of their allegations were made without any attempt to prove them, and without giving Weinstein the opportunity to rebut or challenge them. Some of them brought cases that were rejected because of police misconduct. Presenting their untested evidence in court poisoned the well.

If any of those women had valid charges to make, make them, and take him to court, where you can attempt to prove your case and Weinstein can be given a fair chance to rebut your accusations. If you can’t or won’t prove them, you have no business testifying in a case you are not involved with in order to smear the defendant.

Complicating the matter is that many of these women did have consensual sex with Weinstein. At least some of them, were hoping to advance their careers in the film industry as a result. Even the two actual victims in the case who allege that Weinstein raped them also had consensual sex with him. This raises the possibility that many or all of the damaging character witnesses may be experiencing something like buyer’s remorse. They consented to sex on the expectation that Weinstein would advance their film careers. When he didn’t fulfill his side of the deal, they came to believe that the sex was, in some sense, less consensual than it was when they consented.

That’s not a crime. It’s just contemptible. Or, if it is a crime, the victims are the actresses who were unwilling to make a pact with the devil and, therefore, lost opportunities for a career in film and were replaced by actresses who were willing to trade sex for opportunity. It is also contemptible for aspiring actresses to use sex to curry favor with producers and other powerful insiders in order to get juicy film roles.

Similarly, in the Bill Cosby case, the victim had agreed to a cash settlement with Cosby for which, as part of the agreement she voluntarily signed, she agreed to never again bring charges against him. She didn’t have to take the money. She didn’t have to sign the agreement. The agreement was actually supervised by a judge through the court system. So when the authorities decided to charge Cosby anyway, and she testified– breaking the agreement– I thought immediately that a judge should have thrown it out (or demanded that she return the money she received from Cosby). I thought that was obvious. Eventually, it was obvious and the case was thrown out.

Reporter Jessica Bennett seems to believe that a bedrock principle of justice– a very important principle– should be dispensed with so it would be easier to convict someone based on flimsy evidence (what could it be if not “flimsy” if it’s not strong enough to support a conviction on its own). In a sense, it is the principle of having the right to confront your accuser. The additional women who testified against Weinstein denied him the right to “confront” their accusations by making them in court in a case in which their charges were not being tested. That is an afront to fundamental justice.

His conviction in California used the same approach. And I hope that the higher courts throw out his conviction there as well.

Then I hope both systems re-try him and come up with a fair judgement based on the facts of the case– not on his reputation.

2024-04-292024-04-29

The Elusive Joy of Apocalypse

“The crowd, too, seemed electrified in a way I had not seen for years. The lifting up of the martyr, the processing of her death into rage, the processing, through Trump, of the rage into joy — the old alchemy was working again.” NY Times

I don’t think I personally give enough credit to the “joy” aspect of finding out that your worst fantasies about global conspiracies (the Democrats, the Ukrainians, the French, the Pope, the sex traffickers, the Fairies & Orcs, Mike Pence– whomever) are likely true, and that a savior– with his own custom leather-bound bible to offer– is bravely defying the courts and politicians and judges (even the ones he appointed) who are out there serving the interests of the international pedophile conspiracy by bringing him down. The swagger, the mocking, the insults (even of Jimmy Carter as he mourned the death of his wife), seem tasteful to you, hallmarks of virtue and moral courage and dignity. Surely he would have served in the military had he had the opportunity– okay, maybe he did dodge it– and surely some of those wounded veterans like John McCain deserved mockery, but he is sure to restore military spending to its normal level of ten times what everyone else in the world is spending combined, and he will stop crime, invent manufacturing, prove that all the world’s climate scientists are liars, put Stormy Daniels back in her place, pay the money he owes the National Enquirer, eliminate the deficit by cutting taxes (after increasing it massively his first term), stop abortion (unless the polling shows it’s a loser of an issue), cure cancer, and maybe actually go to church some days. Whatever he says, even if it’s the opposite of what he said yesterday or the day before that, or tomorrow, believe it, deliriously. You know in your heart that to do otherwise will bring not a rational, creaky, imperfect but functioning state; no, it will bring the apocalypse.

2024-03-212024-03-22

Socialism for the Rich

In the contest for dumbest government programs, state funding of Hollywood productions must rank near the top, along with sports stadiums.

‘After a state economist determined that “the film incentives represent lost revenue” and that their economic benefits were “negligible,” Michigan, which cut funding for the police and schools while facing a severe budget deficit, eventually decided to end its incentives.’

Now Michigan wants to restart the program. Because Georgia and Indiana do it and we must compete in this race to the bottom! Both parties do it while selling the myth that these productions generate local jobs and increased tax revenue. Clint Eastwood, hard core self-reliant pull-your-bootstraps up Republican, is more than happy to take advantage of this welfare program for actors and directors.

‘A recent report prepared for state auditors in Georgia estimated that the tax revenue returned on each dollar spent on incentives was 19 cents. A similar report from New York determined the return was between 15 cents and 31 cents.’

Socialism for the rich.

It is very disappointing, to say the least, that taxpayers who are outraged by this or that or everything completely miss the biggest spending scandals happening right in front of them.

2024-02-202024-05-26

Spinoza Would be Appalled

I read this today in the letters section of the New York Times in response to this article on Spinoza.

If one were adhere to the worldview of Spinoza as defined here, you would be very saddened by the way democracy is practiced in this country today. The founders viewed liberty and freedom as the bedrock of a self-governing country. We have become over the last century or more a country whereby unelected unknown individuals working for the government have taken control of aspects of our lives for our supposed own good. Spinoza would be appalled as would the founders over how we have lost much of our liberty to think and run our lives.

I responded thusly:

@bill walker Your comment stopped me. Really? So you wanted to read a controversial book and couldn’t find it? You wanted to go to any church at all and someone prevented you? You wanted to see a movie, attend a lecture, take part in a political rally, and were held back? You couldn’t choose a doctor or go to a private or public school or drink from a public fountain or change your gender or post a letter to the editor because “unelected unknown individuals working for the government” were out to limit your freedoms? Spinoza, if he were here today, would be plainly astonished at the amount of freedom we have. Objectively, no people have ever been more free to express their wishes as we are today. It’s not those unelected unknown people who want to limit your freedom: is those elected MAGA stooges who forced libraries to remove dictionaries because they define words that describe bodily functions. In other words, they are us, if we let them.

2024-01-112024-01-26

Trump Support May Not be as Firm as People Think

In a recent discussion with Republican voters in Iowa, I was surprised– and then, not surprised– at the level of skepticism expressed towards Donald Trump. These are Republican voters. Most of them supported him in 2016 and 2020. They believed the innumerable stupid things he said, without proof, without objective verification. And now, suddenly, some of them feel that he has become self-centered and self-pitying. They even actually seem to suddenly feel that his divisiveness is a liability.

Four out of eight of these selected voters said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of the criminal charges he is facing. Really? That matters to some Republicans? That is astounding. We have been given the impression by the media that Trump supporters are rigid, inflexible, and devoted. Yet, most of the eight people interviewed had serious misgivings. They didn’t like the chaos. They didn’t like the whining about being persecuted. They are not going to vote for Biden, by any means, but some of them sounded like they might not vote at all.

I don’t think the media was wrong. I think these voters have become more conscious of what people might think of them if they continue to parrot Donald Trump’s idiotic incoherent campaign tropes.

If this is an accurate reflection of the real Republican core, Trump has a problem.

They sounded like they don’t want people to think they are stupid.

At least one of them asked the very solid, germane question: what, exactly, will you (Republican candidate) do about the border? We all agree there is a problem: what solution do you offer. He observed that none of them gave any specifics.

One striking thing: they don’t flatter Ron DeSantis for not criticizing Trump.

One of them (John, 67, engineer) said this:

Mr. President, do you know how to serve us humbly? Strength and humility go together. Strength and bullying don’t. But I’d really like to have him address why he thinks that it has to be that way. It doesn’t.

Huh. And I’ll bet he voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. And just now has come to the realization that admitting it might make him look stupid.

2024-01-042024-01-17

This is who you are

I have recently read and heard from Christian apologists who assert, in one form or another, that the Evangelical Christian community that passionately supports Donald Trump actually understands that he is an unworthy person of bad taste and style who is nevertheless God’s chosen vessel to restore America to holiness and conviction and the purity of our bodily fluids.

All right– sarcasm aside, some Christians say that while they are disgusted with Trump’s personal character they support him because he appoints anti-abortion judges, stands up for gun rights, opposes same-sex marriage and homosexuality, and resists the world-wide conspiracy to replace white Americans with people of color.

In other words, they believe that a man who is a serial womanizer, a materialist, a liar, a bragger, and vulgarity incarnated somehow, when it comes to issues that matter to the Christian community, acts in a way that Jesus would approve of.

I don’t believe they really believe that. They might say they do, but the evidence is overwhelming: they don’t. Trump is the evangelical community unmasked. He is what they are. Vulgar. Grasping. Materialistic. Cruel and dishonest.

They do not see Trump as a corrupt vessel of God’s will; to them, he really is God’s chosen messenger, an avatar of all the values and beliefs that they hold dear but don’t want to publicly acknowledge, a bully and thug who they really like because he is a bully and thug. The main body of Evangelical Christians will deny that they embrace Trump the corrupt vessel because he exposes them for what they are: raging hypocrites who have demonstrated over and over again that they never did really believe in the teachings of Christ or the bible.

A political scientist at Furman University, Jim Guth:

White evangelicals share with Trump a multitude of attitudes, including his hostility toward immigrants, his Islamophobia, his racism, and nativism, as well as his “political style,” with its nasty politics and assertion of strong, solitary leadership. Indeed, Trump’s candidacy may have “authorized” for the first time the widespread expression of such attitudes.

The Evangelical Christian community has always been pro-gun. They love guns. They have always been generously forgiving of war criminals like William Calley, Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, Dustin Heard and Nicholas Slatten, if they are Americans. They have consistently rejected the Bible’s clear mandate to care for creation as obedient stewards, not as exploitive pirates. They preach abstinence and self-denial but indulge in every possible form of acquisitiveness of property and worship church leaders who brag about their private jets and access to political leaders. They claim to admire integrity and character but they hated the two presidents with the most integrity and character in the past 50 years, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.

As they sit there in their pews, chanting and singing, reciting from scripture, and folding their hands in prayer, they know, deep in their hearts, that what they like about Trump is precisely his pettiness, his vindictiveness, his vulgarity, his bullying, his meanness, and his materialism. They do not quietly accept him and hold their noses: they bless him and admire him and scream and cheer him when he is at his most divisive and vulgar.

He is you. And he has revealed to the world the truth of what it means to be an evangelical Christian in the United States in 2024.

Nothing.

I take note of a recent confirmation of this point.

Evita, Hamilton Family Theatre, Cambridge, 2023-10-26

With the rise of populism in various countries around the world (Hungary, Poland, India, United States, Italy, etc.) it is worth seeing “Evita” in Cambridge at the Hamilton Family Theatre. It’s a very good production and touches on the nature of populism, the irrational belief people might have that a narcissistic, corrupt, self-serving figure like Evita Peron (and a certain orange-haired American politician) will save the nation, bring social justice and equality, and stick it to those educated, rich, smart-alecky elites that control the media and preside over government bureaucracies.

Regardless of the politics, it’s a fascinating story, and they could have written an entire second opera on what happened to Eva’s body– and Juan Peron– after her death, and, of course, the corpse of the Argentinian economy.

An object lesson in mass media as well: the people thought Eva was saintly because she created a foundation and personally wrote checks to poor people who lined up to see her. The specific stories made great anecdotes, with saturated media coverage, but most of the money probably ended up in the pockets of Juan and Eva Peron. There is no reason to not account for the income and spending except to hide where the money went.

There is a bit of a drive out there to rehabilitate her image, and argue that Rice’s lyrics for “Evita” are based on a rather biased biography. It is probably true that she was not as bad as her enemies made her out to be, but there is ample evidence to suggest that her charitable works were never not substantially self-serving even if she did promote unions that bettered the lives of working class individuals in Argentina at the time– and promoted her husband to the presidency and, she hoped, herself to the vice-presidency.

There’s a bit of a feminist angle to the “rehabilitation” of women of historical importance like Josephine, Cleopatra, Marie Antoinette, and Evita. Most of the time, yes, the negatives stories have been exaggerated over time, but the essential details of their lives remain the same. And in some cases, the “rehabilitation” glosses over historical facts in order to cleanse their reputations. Marie Antoinette was involved in conspiracies to restore her husband to the throne; Josephine did not inspire Napoleon’s great strategies or legislative accomplishments, Cleopatra reign was oppressive, and Evita was a self-centered narcissist who used her sexuality to achieve her position of privilege under the Peronist regime.