Why Black Women Are Fat? Mere Perceptions?

In yesterday's Best of the Web Today, published by the Wall Street Journal online, James Taranto addresses a new study linking obesity with racial oppression. As usual, his analysis is trenchant and pointed; the study is replete with hidden assumptions and non causa pro causa fallacies where causality and correlation are confused. Mr. Taranto ably points out many of the deficiencies of the study (some of the conclusions drawn from the study are truly laughable).

Ostensibly, the study -- if one can call it that -- proves that black women who are victims of racism respond to such abuse by putting on a few pounds. Mr. Taranto is right to note that the women in the study only perceive that they are victims of racism; the racial component is not actually empirically proven by the study, though it is obviously inferred from the results of a series of questionnaires.

But there are more difficulties with the study that Mr. Taranto fails to note. Obviously he hasn't time to delve more deeply into the study's weaknesses, but we do, and several things seem very much worth noting here.

First, if the women involved in the study infer from their perceptions of being slighted by shopkeepers or dissed by restaurant waitstaff that these improprieties are racially motivated, it must be asked whether such an inference is at all justified. How do these women know that the person allegedly speaking condescendingly to them is not patronizing them solely because they are overweight? Perhaps skin color has nothing to do with any of this; perhaps overweight women become even more overweight in a response to the prejudice other people have about overweight people. And perhaps overweight women perceive slights that are not slights at all, and, believing these perceived slights are real, decide that it is not weight but race that motivates such slights. But why would an obese woman do such a thing? Perhaps because obesity is embarrassing and perceiving racism where there is none keeps the obese person from addressing the real causes of that embarrassing problem. It's all a defensive mode, a shifting of blame. Perception, one must remember, is not to be confused with reality. Hence, perception can be used as a false cover precisely because it is so vague, elastic and subjective. The study in question has NOTHING to say about false covers.

Second, the study fails to explain why white women are overweight and even obese. What social evil pushes white women toward corpulence? Are white women also responding to bigotry as they pack on the pounds?

Black women involved in a study regarding race and weight may actually be victims of a sicker combination of social factors, namely, a complicated paranoia created by social scientists and researchers who suggest to these women that every slight in the world is racially motivated. Perhaps these dear obese black women are not victims of direct racism at all. Instead, they are unable to properly socialize precisely because they've been led to believe that racism is poised to rear its ugly head in every public place and social encounter. Perhaps the actual cause of the obesity in these black women was the latently racist study itself; according to the report all the women -- all 43,000 participants! -- got heavier during the eight-year-long study. And since this study cannot ever answer why white women are obese -- since white women can't perceive racial slights and insults -- it seems that the study's conclusions prove my point: the study itself has reinforced an attitude that leads to unhealthy living. (And what was the control group, by the way, and how did it fare?)

As for white women and obesity, perhaps a study will show that such women who succumb to obesity are victims of a social pressure to be glamorous, lithe and preternaturally sexy. Perhaps that is in some part true; no doubt such women struggle with poor self-esteem. But imagine a study that really makes such a connection, and then note this phenomenon: that the study itself implies that women SHOULD have low self-esteem for the simple reason that women are so easily duped into thinking they must conform to certain images, including, ironically, the image of NOT BEING DUPED, which is the very image latently propagated by the study that proves women are obese because of their susceptibility to being duped. In other words, white women are fat because they can't conform to certain body images portrayed in the media, which proves that such women are too stupid or too intemperate to resist those images.

Really, thanks for the help with the self-esteem.

At the heart of this study on black women and obesity is a fixation on an external locus of control. The problem is "out there." These women are victims to externals. That there is no mention -- seemingly -- of the lack of internal coping strategies or habits to resist the wrong reaction to stress is truly indicative of the world in which we live: you are not to blame.

But the MOST startling thing about this study is that it purports to be SCIENCE. That non causa pro causa fallacies are considered scientific (and they are rather often) is truly disconcerting; this study strikes this writer as so utterly devoid of meaning that one might conclude that the future of science is actually in doubt: this study brings a whole new meaning to the genre of science fiction. But non causa pro causa fallacies are almost de rigueur for our society. Pick your issue -- CO2 levels and increasing average global temperatures; CEO bonuses and job layoffs -- and you'll see that the confusing of correlation with causation is endemic to this era. Being fallacious is utterly fashionable, even for epidemiologists researching the human condition. How sad.

Here's a question: Who can we blame for this?

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Kissing Wide-eyed Justice

The problems of the equality (to men) and nature of women have been addressed here several times, particularly in two essays regarding Lawrence Summers' maligned comments at Harvard University four years ago this month (see this essay, and this).

Recall that it was asserted at Contratimes in the wake of Mr. Summers' embarrassment that men and women must be really quite different. One bit of evidence cited in defense of this assertion was the 2004 presidential candidacy of Carol Mosley Brown; Ms. Brown's campaign included the demand that it was time to "take the 'Men Only' sign" off the White House door. Surely Ms. Brown's supporters instantly knew what she meant: women bring very different qualities to governance and legislation than those qualities brought by men.

There is a real problem with Ms. Brown's demand, but it will be overlooked for now, especially since it was addressed in the two essays noted above. Indeed, there is a real problem even with the idea that men and women are basically interchangeable; if you are interested in some of my thoughts on that matter specifically, you can join the discussion at Political Cartel that began some weeks ago (see "The Problem without a Name"; my comments begin here).

But there is one thing very current about Ms. Brown's call to clear the White House of its "Men Only" tree-fort mentality, and it is its seeming similarity (at least its shared premise) to a comment from Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Apparently Ms. Sotomayor also believes men and women are really rather different. How else to explain her comment? But if men and women are really rather different; if a woman will reach better conclusions than a male, then how are men and women at all equal?

Surely feminists can work that one out. And no doubt they will also work out what Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor were thinking when, as the resident of the "Men Only" White House was introducing her as his "inspiring" pick for the Supreme Court, she gushed like a school-girl as he -- the Commander-in-Chief -- kissed her without flinching.

Maybe if Mr. Obama gets to choose another Supreme Court justice, he'll choose a man he can whisper to as he hugs and kisses him before the whole world.

By the way, compare Mr. Obama's introduction of Ms. Sotomayor to George W. Bush's introduction of Harriet E. Miers. Fascinating stuff. (Just listen to the sort of qualities President Bush valued. The similarities and the differences between the two nominees and administrations are worth the 30 or so minutes of watching both videos. Plus, note the manner and setting of both announcements; notice how one uses spectacle.)

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Remembering The Color Red (repost from 2005)

[Today is Memorial Day, and there is much to remember, and much for which to be grateful. Today is a Thanksgiving Day of sorts, a day of gratitude for heroism, strategic genius, strength, and even death. Not senseless death, not ruthless genius, not heroism based on lies; but the noblest acts of the human spirit, which always manifest themselves in risk and sacrifice.]

You've seen the American flag, thousands of times, or perhaps too many times to count. It's arguably a gaudy piece of fabric, like so many strips of cloth pasted together, with staid geometry. It's the sort of thing a child might make, and hardly the kind of thing one would expect of an artist. Picasso would not come up with such a design, nor would Pollack or Warhol or Wyeth. It's a child's creation, it seems, deliberate and direct. A stick figure of simple ideas.

What are those ideas? Thirteen stripes for thirteen colonies; fifty stars of fifty states floating in a blue field of vigilance, perseverance and justice; white for purity and innocence, red for hardiness and courage.

It's all pretty simple.

But the dominating color of the flag is not justice blue or innocent white; it is the hardy, courageous red, the red of bloodshed, of bloody knuckles, barked shins, and bulleted bodies. It is the red of bellicosity, of fighting heartily and hardily, with courage and pride, for what is blue and white, for the pure and innocent; the vigilant and the just.

It is only sensible that red dominates, as this country is built on the blood of others -- countless, mostly faceless and nameless others -- who fought and died for ideals we are free to mock and rebuke in legal and social safety, if we choose. We are free to live because others freely died; their loss being our gain, and therefore their gain as well.

Any living thing on this planet stands in and is rooted in death, in the bloodshed and battles of life. The giant pines outside my windows grip the earth in their sinewy, rooty grasp, rooted in the life-giving death and decay which is soil. There is no escaping the fact that everything alive is alive because of countless deaths, countless invisible battles for survival. America's ideals stand tall quietly sipping the blood of the buried ages past.

So the flag is red, blood red, and there is no white purity or blue vigilance without that bold, primary color.

Currently, blood, American military blood, is dripping in desert sand in a far-away land. It is being bound and mopped up in pure white gauze with blue vigilance, but it is dripping nonetheless. What comfort is there to the dead and wounded if we, as many Americans do, tell them that we support them as heroes yet the reason for their heroism is stupid or a lie or illegal? What meaning does it give an amputee or quadriplegic or blind soldier, to tell him (or her) that, though honored for losing some part of his life, he did so for deception? What sense is there in such paradox - that a man is a hero for doing the immoral or false thing?

"Oh, I support the troops, I just don't support the war."

It's not unlike telling your child you support his interest in playing baseball, but you just don't support the game. You find the game stupid, immoral, illegal, dishonest -- but -- you support his participation. Yes, you just love your daughter's interest in the cello, you just think the cello and Beethoven and Bach are all lies and abuses of power.

One wonders how such parents can cheer at baseball games, or applaud at the end of cello recitals. Most parenting experts would consider such duplicity bad parenting, sending out the double-binds of mixed messages. It would be considered, undoubtedly, by astute therapists, to even be a form of child abuse.

Consider, though, this possibility to frame an allegedly unjust war. Consider that our soldiers were sent in to battle as antibodies are sent into fight infection; or that they are sent in as scalpels to remove a malignancy. And what if they discover there is no infection or malignancy? Would the doctors who sent them in be considered fools, primarily when all the evidence, and even the patient, point to a considerable problem? Would it all be for naught if the reasons were empty and vain?

No, for the precise reason that when the scalpels opened the patient's body, and the antibodies coursed through her veins, other tumors were discovered and removed, and other infections subdued. Doctors could then be heard telling their patient afterwards, "Well, the scans showed a tumor on your liver and an abscess on your bladder, but when we opened you up, we discovered our mistake: You had a malignancy on your stomach and an abscess on your spleen."

For sure countless folks might be tempted to yell out, "Liars! Cheats! Surgery-mongers! You went in on false pretenses. You fudged the MRI data, you fixed the diagnostics around preconceived ideas!" But they'd be fools.

Today remember what it is that makes protest possible, and what it is that makes Thanksgiving necessary. It's Memorial Day. Remember.

Remember that it is a red day for a reason. And, lest we forget, let us remember too that all the states were red in the very beginning.

Peace.

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

It's SO Bad, It's Charitable!

In a courageous demonstration of moral clarity, a Rhode Island Democratic state legislator has promised to donate $100 to charity for each second George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (et al) endure waterboarding.

Hurray for speaking "truth to power"!

Recall what was written here not too long ago regarding Barack Obama's infatuation with America's "ideals":

Remember, waterboarding is so torturous, so utterly evil, those who oppose its use waterboard themselves in protest. It is also so horrific, so damaging, that journalists get paid to endure it so they can report about its dreadfulness. Clearly you can see how such a thing compromises America's loftiest ideals.

It seems evident that the Rhode Island Democrat behind this charitable charade is guilty of a logical fallacy:

If p then q.
q.
Therefore p.

It is never a bad thing to always mind one's p's and q's, unless, of course, one happens to be a morally upright Democrat. Then, well, "To Cheney's bunker!" No one really cares about the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

A. If waterboarding is truly torture, George W. Bush will not submit to it for charity.
B. George W. Bush will not submit to it for charity.
_______________
Therefore, waterboarding is truly torture.

Yes, yes. We're playing games here. Anyone paying attention can see it is all about games.

It might not be a mad world, but it sure is a stupid one. Of course one mustn't be too critical of a stupidity that will so generously benefit "charity."

Here's hoping that Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove can handle a little water for about 120 seconds each. The New York Times could sure use their gifts.

PEACE.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Let Sleeping Goats Sleep

There is, not far from here, a new wind farm. (Just imagine raising wind: it costs nothing to feed but there remains quite a lot of overhead.) It is a fascinating spectacle. This writer has traveled past it several times in recent months. His one unshakeable curiosity? To get close enough to the giant windmills to "hear" them. Unfortunately, time has not allowed a scurry uphill; one can't readily get near enough to hear what has to be an impressive "whop -- whop -- whop."

Indeed, these are giants. The dozen windmills each stand nearly 400 feet tall and their three-bladed turbines arc an impressive 278-foot diameter† circuit through the air. Think of a pinwheel about the size of a football field. And, as one 18-year-old said as he watched the blades cut through the atmosphere, "Those babies are cruisin'!!" Cruising indeed. It would be interesting to calculate the tip speed of each blade.

Ever since I saw the future -- and these turbines seem almost other-worldly -- as I drove over Lempster Mountain, I have pondered how wildlife might "feel" about the concussive sound produced by scissor-like blades ripping through air. Again, let me reiterate, these blades are massive and they are indeed ripping. What do deer feel in the deep dark when they hear such turbulence? How do owls behave near the towers when hearing is such a key component to their nightly survival? How about insects and bats? What is the long-term effect on the fauna -- and the flora -- of a forest in which such sweeping noises are heard and felt 24 hours a day? How has the dance of survival, and the dance of reproduction, changed beneath those spiralling towers?

Well, I know one answer, and it is found in this headline: Wind Turbines 'Killed Goats' By Depriving Them Of Sleep. (I note that recent reports from Amnesty International prove that the CIA has been secretly using windmills at Gitmo and various rendition camps around the world. One AI spokesperson, speaking anonymously for fear of the installation of a wind turbine near his home, revealed that "green energy" is code for torture.)

Ironically, or so it seems, these local turbines are used to create 24-megawatts of power that will be used to generate lights and gadgets that will in turn illuminate and disturb the dark in more than 10,000 homes. But the disturbance of sleep, the war on true darkness by artifical lighting, and the smashing of silence by ticking clocks and buzzing buzzers and annoying alarms, are all born in the deep once-silent woods atop a small and ancient mountain ridge. The wind is an utterly consistent "renewable" resource; and the whop of the blades is humanity's whopping penchant for insomnia. Hear the gentle breeze. It's so electric.

And yet the forest can't sleep. Think of the energy wasted staying awake on the very cutting edge of madness.

(†Each blade is 139 feet long. I do not know the radius of the axis/nacelle; Gamesa, the manufacturer of the turbines, does not provide such data on its website. So the actual size of the rotor might be larger than 278 feet. I also note that Gamesa has designed each blade with the aim of minimizing "noise emissions.")

PEACE.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Thank You, Mr. Blackwell

When reason leads a man's mind, he writes essays such as "Obama And Crimes Against Humanity."

A NOTE TO REPUBLICANS (AND CONSERVATIVES)

It is rather common to think, even among Republicans, that gay marriage has little to do with anything important. All kinds of people sigh that there seem to be more important things to worry about than gay marriage, and they may be right. But it should be noted that if ANYONE were to suggest that all Americans should set aside gay marriage for now so the MORE IMPORTANT things can be addressed, pro-gay marriage activists would scream to high heaven. It is a lie that gay marriage isn't important; it is THE most important thing, at least to gay activists who constantly ask Americans to worry about all those other MORE IMPORTANT things.

If you are a Republican solely because you would like to see government wastefulness and services reduced; if you are a Republican solely because you want lower taxes, a more vibrant free-market economy, and less government intrusion on your personal (and your business's) income, then you need to consider two things.

First, if the extent of your political activism is solely about money, spending, taxes, economics; if this is your constant concern, you appear, at least to your opponents, as a person fixated on yourself. In other words, you come across as greedy, avaricious, materialistic, selfish. And if economics, private and public, are your sole political concern, you MIGHT deserve to be called a heartless materialist.

Second, if you as a fiscally-minded Republican could broaden your mind to things beyond the fiscal, you would see that gay marriage IS a threat to your wealth, your good fortune or the rewards you've enjoyed as a result of your hard work. Why? Because the spirit of egalitarianism that is behind gay marriage is the same spirit behind higher taxation and expanding distributive government. Gay marriage is about what YOU have that "they" don't have -- unfair! unjust! unequal! -- just like the death or estate tax is about what YOU have that "they" don't have. It's unfair that you can send your kids to a school of your choice. It's unjust that you can leave your estate to your children in order to give them an advantage. It's unfair that you can afford health care when others can't (or that you can afford "better" health care). It's a gross inequality that you can have a bigger share and not be forced to "give back" your "fair share." (Even abortion rights are of the same spirit: it is not fair that a woman should be forced to bear the result of the sex act when the man does not.)

Alas, if you as a Republican neither see nor care to see this connection, then you should rethink your allegiance to the Republican Party. Sorry. For the GOP is really not about egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism: the GOP really believes that there are ontological differences between people, things, circumstances. The GOP really believes that FORCING charity, beneficence and equality, all by law, is to deny freedom. The GOP really believes that competition is OK, that not everyone deserves a blue ribbon. The GOP really believes in the possibility and the reality of gaining a just advantage over others and passing that advantage -- in accord with EVOLUTION -- to one's offspring. The GOP really believes that envy politics as embodied in legislative "reforms" such as reparations, or gay marriage, or increased taxation on the rich or corporations, is detrimental to the health not only of the individual but the collective as well.

In short, the GOP recognizes that where egalitarianism reigns, freedom MUST DIE. What are the most egalitarian systems in the world? Prisons, gulags, concentration camps -- where all men are equal.

Let me put it this way. When the founders of our country (I note Thomas Jefferson in the following clause) wrote that "All men are created equal," what was NOT written is that "All men ARE EQUAL." Nor was it written that "All men must be MADE EQUAL." No, the brilliance of Jefferson is that he saw that all are CREATED equal, by "nature's God." Naked each of is us born, and naked we shall die (from dust to dust). But nature, society, circumstance, God: all of these combine to make dynamic inequalities (some no doubt sad and unjust) that make each human -- and humanity -- stronger, better, more adaptable. SAMENESS and EQUALITY are anathema to survival; natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is only possible where there are inequalities.

In closing I note that Republicans fixated solely on moral issues are vulnerable to accusations that they only care about controlling what occurs in America's bedrooms. Fair enough; some people are overly fixated on minding others' private lives. But the fact is that the morality of egalitarianism, so to speak, does not stop in the bedroom or the boardroom. It is a pervasive morality. Once Americans allow egalitarians to codify the irrational assertion that two gay men in matrimony EQUALS a man and a woman; once Americans allow egalitarians to insist that it is unfair that 1+1 is NOT equal to 2+2, America has allowed envy and the irrational to gain a foothold. If the irrational is allowed to redefine what the demonstrable building block of all society is; if the envious are allowed to define marriage (and equality and fairness), then the irrational will rule throughout society, culture and government.

Stand against envy and the irrational. Please.


©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (with attached note to Republicans)

(The first of two emails to Governor Lynch of New Hampshire. Unfortunately the email field for the governor limits each comment to 800 characters, including spaces. The emails printed here are rounded out more fully, though not completely, for clarity.)

Dear Governor Lynch,

HB 436 -- or the same-sex marriage bill -- is just bad legislation. It should be rejected in large part because it is poorly crafted. That is not your fault; you should veto it without remorse.

If same-sex marriage is a civil right, how can a bill conferring that right also include an exemption (HB 457:37) for those religious who do not wish to solemnize and confer such a right in their churches? Can anyone imagine a religious leader being given essentially a "conscientious objector exemption" because his/her church has a religious issue serving communion to African Americans?

In other words, if same-sex marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT, no one with the authority to confer and solemnize that right should be LEGALLY permitted NOT to confer that right.

It is truly astonishing that those legislators who have been most vocal about same-sex marriage being a civil right undermine their own argument by granting exemptions to people who don't believe it to be a right.

Governor Lynch, please veto HB 436. It is fraught with difficulties, legal AND religious. Signing it is to open a veritable Pandora's box. And please, don't accept the demonstrably false assertion that HB 436 won't be bad for the people of New Hampshire. It will be bad precisely because it contains a massive legal and religious contradiction that will only cause confusion, resentment, and bitterness. This is essentially divisive and not unitive legislation. It deserves your complete rejection.

Blessings to you in your decision. Follow logic and you will not make a mistake

PART TWO (the second of two emails to Governor Lynch)†

I need to point out that HB 436 also includes language that is ridiculously vague. I've already pointed out the problem with what could be called the "conscientious objector clause." But there is also a problem with the language in the bill listing who CANNOT marry, e.g. a man cannot marry his cousin, etc.

For example, what if the cousin is an adopted child, or the man's uncle or aunt was adopted, or a half-sibling to the man's biological parent? What if the man is adopted himself? And why is it illegal for a man to "marry" his cousin if the cousin is a gay male? There is no possibility of incest-related birth defects affecting their offspring if it is impossible for two men to procreate.

Because the law is poorly written, it cannot help us discern a clear path through these more complex marital arrangements.

What is clearly evident is that HB436 actually will create a NEW category of marital relations that ONLY gays and lesbians can enjoy. If we believe that a man should not marry his female cousin or a woman should not marry her male cousin because of the threat their shared DNA poses to potential offspring, then it follows that since two male or female homosexuals CANNOT procreate, they are legally permitted to marry each other if they are indeed cousins (and uncles and aunts). Or is there some arbitrary reason gays and lesbians cannot marry their same-sex cousins? What is that reason? Is it just about fairness?

Hence, since there is no legal or biological reason why two same-sex cousins (or other relations) cannot marry (and HB 436 says nothing about same-sex aunts and uncles who are adopted or only half-uncles/aunts), HB 436 has either imposed an arbitrary divide or it has opened the door to conferring legally protected special marital rights to gay cousins because its language is pathetically vague. If the latter, then we have not solved the marriage equality issue if gays and lesbians can marry their same-sex cousins and heterosexuals cannot marry their opposite-sex cousins.

HB 436 is rife with legal problems. Reject it.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

______________________

New Hampshire's HB 436 is another sad example of the rather problematic political model of LEGISLATE NOW, THINK LATER.º

_______________________

A NOTE TO REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVESª

It is rather common to think that gay marriage has little to do with anything important. All kinds of people sigh that there seem to be more important things to worry about than gay marriage, and they may be right. But it should be noted that if ANYONE were to suggest that all Americans should set aside gay marriage for now so the MORE IMPORTANT things can be addressed, pro-gay marriage activists would scream to high heaven. It is a lie that gay marriage isn't important; it is THE most important thing, at least to gay activists who constantly ask Americans to worry about all those other MORE IMPORTANT things.

If you are a Republican solely because you would like to see government wastefulness and services reduced; if you are a Republican solely because you want lower taxes, a more vibrant free-market economy, and less government intrusion on your personal (and your business's) income, then you need to consider two things.

First, if the extent of your political activism is solely about money, spending, taxes, economics; if this is your constant concern, you appear, at least to your opponents, as a person fixated on yourself. In other words, you come across as greedy, avaricious, materialistic, selfish. And if economics, private and public, are your sole political concern, you MIGHT deserve to be called a heartless materialist.

Second, if you as a fiscally-minded Republican would broaden your mind, you would see that gay marriage IS a threat to your wealth, your good fortune or the rewards you've enjoyed as a result of your hard work. Why? Because the spirit of egalitarianism that is behind gay marriage is the same spirit behind higher taxation and expanding distributive government. Gay marriage is about what YOU have that "they" don't have -- unfair! unjust! unequal! -- just like the death or estate tax is about what YOU have that they don't have. It's unfair that you can send your kids to a school of your choice. It's unjust that you can leave your estate to your children in order to give them an advantage. It's unfair that you can afford health care when others can't (or that you can afford "better" health care). It's a gross inequality that you can have a bigger share and not be forced to "give back" your "fair share." (Even abortion rights are of the same spirit: it is not fair that a woman should be forced to bear the result of the sex act when the man does not.)

Alas, if you as a Republican neither see nor care to see this connection, then you should rethink your allegiance to the Republican Party. Sorry. For the GOP is really not about egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism: the GOP really believes that there are ontological differences between people, things, circumstances. The GOP really believes that FORCING charity, beneficence and equality, all by law, is to deny freedom. The GOP really believes that competition is OK, that not everyone deserves a blue ribbon. The GOP really believes in the possibility and the reality of gaining a just advantage over others and passing that advantage -- in accord with EVOLUTION -- to one's offspring. The GOP really believes that envy politics as embodied in legislative "reforms" such as reparations, or gay marriage, or increased taxation on the rich or corporations, is detrimental to the health not only of the individual but the collective as well.

In short, the GOP recognizes that where egalitarianism reigns, freedom MUST DIE. What are the most egalitarian systems in the world? Prisons, gulags, concentration camps -- where all men are equal.

Let me put it this way. When the founders of our country (I note Thomas Jefferson in the following clause) wrote that "All men are created equal," what was NOT written is that "All men ARE EQUAL." Nor was it written that "All men must be MADE EQUAL." No, the brilliance of Jefferson is that he saw that all are CREATED equal, by "nature's God." Naked is each of us born, and naked we shall die (from dust to dust). But nature, society, circumstance, God: all of these combine to make dynamic inequalities (some no doubt sad and unjust) that make each human -- and humanity -- stronger, better, more adaptable. SAMENESS and EQUALITY are anathema to survival; natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is only possible where there are inequalities.

In closing I note that Republicans fixated solely on moral issues are vulnerable to accusations that they only care about controlling what occurs in America's bedrooms. Fair enough; some people are overly fixated on minding others' private lives. But the fact is that the morality of egalitarianism, so to speak, does not stop in the bedroom or the boardroom. It is a pervasive morality. Once Americans allow egalitarians to codify the irrational assertion that two gay men in matrimony EQUALS a man and a woman; once Americans allow egalitarians to insist that it is unfair that 1+1 is NOT equal to 2+2, America has allowed envy and the irrational to gain a foothold. If the irrational is allowed to redefine what the demonstrable building block of all society is; if the envious are allowed to define marriage (and equality and fairness), then the irrational will rule throughout society, culture and government.

Stand against envy and the irrational. Please.


©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

†Added at 4:53 pm EST
º Added at 5:53 pm EST
ª Added at 11:03 EST, May 10

Shifting Sands; Obama's Idealism; The Court; The Water Board

Perhaps the next party defection Americans will hear about is George McGovern, the once-upon-a-time "'most liberal' nominee for president in American history." Admittedly, this writer has over-stated the case. But Mr. McGovern sure sounds like a true free-marketeer in this comment:

My perspective on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is informed by life experience. After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with -- the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.

Sounds like Michael Steele needs to make a phone call.

___________________

Mr. Obama is happy to talk about false choices, particularly those choices around America's ideals and national security. As already noted in this place, Mr. Obama is rather guilty of making his own false choices: national security is one of America's ideals. But excuse the digression.

What peeves about Mr. Obama's comment that ideals trump everything is the disembodied-ness of his philosophy. He speaks in terms that are rather neo-Platonic, where what is best, pure and (most) real exists outside the corporeality of life, of the stuff of the world. Mr. Obama has intimated in his discussions regarding the alleged "torture memos" that America's ideals would be compromised, sullied and damaged if the very corporeal and bodily act of slapping was ever committed against a known terrorist or enemy combatant. What is more important is not the flesh-and-blood reality of living and breathing Americans. What is important is a transcendent, intangible, theoria: a realm of perfect Ideas.

Another way to look at it is to simply think of pacifism. A pacifist -- really -- is a person interested in self-preservation, in moral self-preservation. The pacifist says that he would rather die -- or let someone else die -- than suffer a moral stain on his ideals. Turning the other cheek, then, becomes a practical act of self-congratulation, where the pacifist receives glory when measured against a reified abstraction: his moral code. To hell with the flesh-and-blood empiricism of life, the heart-beating apparatus of human existence. What matters is idealism, the realm of the disembodied spirit rapturously contemplating glorious principles. To the idealist, Smith must never compromise his values in protecting Jones, for if he does, he will lose his "moral standing" in the world.

Sadly, Jones beheaded by a terrorist using a jack-knife before a TV camera is a "thought" too mundane, too tactile, for the idealists among us. "Harsh" interrogation methods are an affront to America's disembodied self-congratulation. Americans must feel good about themselves; they must preserve their self-righteousness by never defending themselves in ways unbecoming.

Ultimately, it's not the actual people that make America great, that embody American exceptionalism. America's greatness is found in its cold, lifeless abstractions.

__________________

Some folks have suggested that U.S. Supreme Justice David Souter has been a disappointment. Perhaps he has been. But it's interesting how his legacy (so far) has been perceived. The common reprise by conservatives is that Mr. Souter was either a conservative who shifted radically to the left or he never was a conservative in the first place. Of course this sort of assessment is to be set against the apparent values of the president who nominated him. In this case, or so it goes, Mr. Souter did not meet the expectations of George H. W. Bush. Souter shifted his position or, even worse, he concealed his position from the light of day.

But something is missing from this assessment, and it is that George H. W. Bush himself shifted his position during the Reagan years on key political issues. In 1979-80, as G. H. W. Bush began his first campaign for president, Mr. Bush was deemed by many conservatives too liberal for the position. Interestingly, Mr. Bush shifted right, ever so slowly, on things like abortion. Cynics felt he did this solely for political expedience, and they may be correct. But if they are correct, then it follows that Mr. Souter is not at all a disappointment, since he, like his sponsor, actually believed something other than represented. Perhaps Mr. Souter behaved exactly the way a George H. W. Bush appointment should have behaved. Perhaps his jurisprudential legacy is not an embarrassment at all.

___________________

Remember, waterboarding is so torturous, so utterly evil, those who oppose its use water-board themselves in protest. It is also so horrific, so damaging, that journalists get paid to endure it so they can report about its dreadfulness. Clearly you can see how such a thing compromises America's loftiest ideals.

Peace.

BG

©2009. All Rights Reserved.