Silliness

“Reverse racism” is such a silly phrase.

What could it possibly mean?

A racist is a racist, regardless of skin color, and “reverse racism” is just an example of unthinking writers who waste electronic ink.

Sphere: Related Content

So, I’m a smart ass…So sue me

Technorati Tags: Sexual orientation,Sexual preference,Language

:

Not really…the suing part.

The local newspaper, The Desert Sun had a piece today indicating disapproval of those protesting Chaz Bono’s upcoming appearance on “Dancing with the Stars.”

I liked it except for the use of “sexual preference.”  Now, since I am of the opinion that virtually everyone who is protesting against Mr. Bono’s appearance has participated in his sexual preference activities in one way or another, I doubt very seriously they are protesting that/those preference(s).

So I wrote the following to the “Community Conversations Editor” at the paper. I got carried away.

It was such fun and became so silly that I thought I’d share it.  Have fun.

xoxox

Dear Mr. X:

Today your editorial page gave a well-deserved “Thumbs Down” to those who are protesting against Chaz Bono’s appearance on “Dancing with the Stars.”

There would be disagreement only from those who are unwilling to learn.

There is, however, one phrase with which others might quibble; it is “sexual preference.” It might be good to take a few moments to educate your writer about the more accurate “sexual orientation” for use in this type of discussion.

To personalize the point, Sir, might I suggest that your sexual preference is what you prefer to do during sexual incidents. Everyone has sexual preferences which are unique and of no concern to others.

Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is how you “lean” when choosing a partner with whom to participate in mutual sexual preferences.

Absent a declaration from a person, sexual preference is unknowable; sexual orientation is somewhat easier to discern. Since most of the protesters against Mr Bono themselves probably engage in whatever sexual activities they might imagine he participates, they are more than likely protesting his orientation than his preference.

Please discuss this with your writer.

Sincerely,

gene touchet

Sphere: Related Content

SCOTUS* vs California Republican Demagoguery

Technorati Tags: Republican Party,Supreme Court,California,Prison

In case you didn’t know it, Dear Gentle Reader(s), the State of California’s prison system is in dire straits. Check out this bit of information provided by the Supreme Court of the United States today:

The degree of overcrowding in California’s prisons is exceptional. California’s prisons are designed to house a population just under 80,000, but at the time of the three-judge court’s decision the population was almost double that. The State’s prisons had operated at around 200% of design capacity for at least 11 years. Prisoners are crammed into spaces neither designed nor intended to house inmates. As many as 200 prisoners may live in a gymnasium, monitored by as few as two or three correctional officers. App. 1337–1338, 1350; see Appendix B, infra. As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet.App. 1337.

This court case has been going on since the early 1990’s.

Don’t quote me, but I blame the Republican Party’s draconian misuse of the ballot initiative available to Californians.  (OK, these ballot measures passed, which means a majority of voters agreed with them.) Specifically, the three-strikes issue, and the 2/3 majority in the legislature needed for tax increases.

By one vote (*thankfully, Mr. Justice Kennedy provided it, otherwise I’d’ve been forced to call it a SC(r)OTUS decision because it would’ve gone the other way) the Court has upheld a lower 3-member Court’s decision to require California to reduce its prison population by some 40,000 inmates.

That’s a tough number, but it brings home the lesson of the dangers of falling for hyperbole during election cycles. We can’t get away from responsibility by believing those who don’t have our societal best interests at heart.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic typo

Technorati Tags: The Desert Sun,Michelle Malkin

Here’s one for the books:

Your left-wing choice [E.J. Dionne] sure showed his colors Monday (“GOP's madman strategy”) and I do not have a problem with that.

However, your choices of “right wing” being Michael Gerson and Bill O'Reilly do not equate except in your own left-winged minds. How about some true conservative contributors such as Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, Michelle Maulkin, Lou Dobbs or Ann Coulter, or are you perhaps afraid readers will actually learn something?

Michelle Maulkin.  Gotta love it.

(This comes from a letter to the editor in the virtual right-wing-rag The Desert Sun out of Palm Springs.)

(Can you imagine anyone thinking he could learn from Malkin, Dobbs, Sowell, or Coulter? lol)

Sphere: Related Content

Going, going…

Technorati Tags: Owen Honors,David Dominguez,Political correctness,Iternet postings,Culture Wars

Navy Capt. Owen Honors lost his job this week.  Chief  David Dominguez, of the Palm Springs Police Department is “retiring.”  Touches of politically incorrect references to the gay community played significant roles in both instances.

Cultural atmosphere ain’t your “funny” uncle’s experience any more.

Sphere: Related Content

Repuglicans

Technorati Tags: DADT,Republican Party,U.S. Senate

DADT fails by 3 votes.

Not much sympathy for Repuglicans for the next few years.

Now if we could only get rid of Boehner’s bitches.

(Do I sound disgruntled?  Very well, then, I sound disgruntled.)

Sphere: Related Content

You Know It’s a Myth

Technorati Tags: Religion,Atheists,advertising

My only objection to the billboard advertising the above is the fact that it doesn’t somewhere also state that all religious writings are metaphorical.

When will we learn?

Sphere: Related Content

Merci, Ciel

Technorati Tags: Bill Maher,The Huffington Post,Tea Party,Elections

Thank heavens for the wit of Bill Maher via The Huffington Post.

Enjoy.

Sphere: Related Content

Beware (Sometimes) the Affable Politician

Waaaaay back in the nineties, some pols in the Republican party decided to push a "good ol' boy" into the national spotlight.



Gingrich was on the rise, due to his success with using C-Span (talking for hours on end to a tv audience in a virtually empty House chamber), but his style was a bit grating, and he had a wandering eye, which could come back to bite him--and the party.



So, by default, the pols decided to place their trust on the first-born of George H. W. and Barbara. He was, by all accounts, eminently electable: good looking, connected, and affable. To top it off, he was easily handled--a schmoozer who could be schmoozed.

Unfortunately, it looked for a while that their boy wouldn't make it. With a little assist from "activist" judges, however, he made it to the prize and we've been taken in with this affableness ever since.

Nice guy. And look how brave he was standing on that rubble. He's so sincere. I'd like to have a beer with him (except he doesn't drink--anymore). So what if he doesn't read the papers? So what if Jesus is his most admired politician? He's a good ol' boy--just look at him. How could you not trust him?

Fast forward. We've been screwed by "sincere" affability.

John Roberts--such a nice lookin' fella. Smart, too. Deferential. Polite to his elders. Clean cut. A real Amurrican boy. Make a fine lookin' Chief Justice. Ol' Sam Alito. Eyetalian, but a hard worker. Pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. Avuncular. Make a fine Associate Justice.

Fast forward. June, 2007. Roberts and Alito siding with the "conservatives" against the consumer, against free speech, against local attempts to fight racian discrimination.

Once more, an affable screwing.

On the other hand--this weekend before the 4th of July, Good ol' boy George will be hosting Vlad the Russian screwer. Since our schmoozer will be in fine fettle--what with using the family compound to impress the erstwhile commie KGB about the rewards of affability. This might be a chance for Gob-George to affably screw Vlad.

It'd be a nice change for us--to get something good for the country out of affability.

Sphere: Related Content

A Light at the end of the Ex-Gay Tunnel?

"A hit! A hit! A palpable hit!" (If you don't have to ask, thank an English teacher!)

It didn't make the national feeds yet, but the Los Angeles Times reports on an up-coming "Freedom Conference" to be held by Exodus International. (Those are the "ex-gay" people.)

Here's the on-line title as well as the subtitle: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays. Christian ministries who see homosexuality as a treatable disorder are starting to think that choice may not be a factor.

A leading proponent of tossing "ex-gay" into the trash bin of history turns out to be none other than Alan Chambers the director of Exodus. The money quote from Mr. Chambers: "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete."

It seems Mr. Chambers, now a husband and father, "...has mostly conquered his own attraction to men..."

The operative word is "mostly," one presumes, which demands of Mr. Chambers more honesty than heretofore he has shown. Good personal progress. His orientation never was, never will be, a choice. It cannot be escaped; it cannot be eradicated. It can be handled, should one choose; that's the only choice.

Discarding the oxymoronic ex-gay is a good step towards eliminating cultural biases against differing sexual orientations.

Let's have more attention paid to precise language.

Good start, Mr. Chambers. Now, get the rest of your organization in line.

Sphere: Related Content

She Didn't Say That...Did She?

Over at the local newspaper, The Desert Sun, a new editorial page "Community Conversation Editor," Angela Cortez, is learning the ropes.

An editorial page commentary on Jerry Falwell today, Falwell's views opened door for many, has an interesting clue as to the direction Ms Cortez is likely to take.

After a rather benign recitation of objective facts, the editorial writer concludes with this: For better or for worse, Falwell was a religious and political force in this country, and his views - while at times despicable and inexcusable - opened the door for a lot of like-minded people to have their voice heard.

Read into that whatever you like. I, for one, like to read that those "like-minded people" are "despicable and inexcusable."

I repeat my contention: Falwell died too soon; he didn't have a "deathbed" conversion/apology as was granted to Lee Atwater, another political operative whose main function in life was to "spin" the truth to achieve questionable ends.

I wonder what Ms Cortez, and/or the editorial writer, meant.

Sphere: Related Content

You're Entitled? Really? Says Who? And to What?

What with all the fiscal brouhaha surrounding the various "entitlements" today, I'm often struck by my own lack of a sense of entitlement, or at least lowered expectations of entitlement. My mother and a now unnamed Catholic priest disabused me of "entitlement" some sixty years ago.

Mother first: I desperately wanted a toy of some sort, and I carefully planned my statement of need to my mother. I can't remember the specifics of the actual approach, but I've never forgotten the immediate result, "No. I need new shoes, and I can't afford a toy right now."

What!?!

There was no appeal.

Around that time, a couple of seconds, perhaps, in terms of the longevity of the earth, I was sitting in church with my Mother (Where was my father during all of this?), listening to a sermon about family. I remember being very pleased with myself--this was a sermon about me, since I was part of a family. All of a sudden, the priest said something to the effect of (I'll use quotes, but, really, who can remember the exact quote of a sermon decades past?), "Remember, the relationship between the husband and wife is the most important part of a family. Not the children."

What!?!

No. No. No. I am the most important part of this family!

I remember looking at my mother, shocked, and she looked back at me with the (memory may fail the exactitude, but not the message) equivalent shrug of, "What? You're surprised? Get real."

Eventually, I did.

All of this is remembered today because of the lead opinion column in today's Los Angeles Times. Dan Neil, a writer for the Times has penned a personal essay about abortion. It is engrossing.*

The Neils, for medical reasons, and, after much consultation and deliberation, underwent a medical procedure which ended the pregnancies of two male fetuses, leaving two female fetuses intact.

The reason Neil gives for the decision was simple; without the abortion, "[Her] health would have been in jeopardy, according to her doctor. The fact is, multiple pregnancies are high risk, and they can go bad very suddenly. I wasn't going to allow that, though the fires of hell might beckon."

The Neils wanted children very badly; they had been in consultation with fertility specialists. The pregnancy, however, had not been easy. He was, rightly, concerned most about the health of his wife. The fetuses were secondary.

Neil goes on to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision to allow the federal statute banning certain late term abortions to stand. He particularly mentions the comments of Justice Kennedy which, patronizingly, states this law is good for women because it protects them from "the mental and moral trauma of the procedure."

We should thank the Neils for their courage. Making their story public can't have been an easy decision. Surely it wasn't as difficult, though, as the decision to undergo the procedure.

Neil also raises other issues, such as time limitations and the macabre law in South Carolina where a woman must look at a sonogram of her fetus.

There are alarm bells ringing out there. Is anyone listening? This is an "entitlement" women really don't want to lose.

No one is pro-abortion; everyone should be pro-choice.

*The print copy is titled "And then there were two," while the on-line copy if called "The abortion debate brought home." Why does the Times do that?

Abortion

Sphere: Related Content

Is "by any other name" OK?

If a group wishes to name itself, are others with whom the group might disagree obliged to call them by their chosen name? Probably so.

How about if the group chooses a phrase with which to describe itself? Are others to be content to adopt that phrase, although the phrase could easily be construed to seize a moral high ground to which the group is not clearly, totally entitled?

I think not. A "Megan," (Megan McArdle) who is one of a group substituting for Andrew Sullivan on his blog, The Daily Dish (see "States rights" April 20, 7:28am), disagrees. Here are email exchanges between Megan and myself.

Everyone is also "pro-choice"; they are just against this particular choice. Everyone is against some choices, like 45 year olds wearing miniskirts, or killing little old ladies to steal their grocery money. The delusion that the label applied to the other side is a grotesque semantic travesty is prevalent on both sides of the debate; I apply the labels the movements have chosen for themselves.
-----Original Message-----From: grtou@msn.comTo: andrew@theatlantic.comSent: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 9:27 AMSubject: For Megan
Please! Stop already with using "pro-life" as though it is the sole property of anti-abortion choice proponents. Everyone is "pro-life." There are no songs celebrating abortion. "Abortions that bloom in the spring, tra-la!" is not in anyone's songbook. Nor is the sentiment in anyone's writing.
Gene Touchet

OK. So. I question the validity of her opening sentence: Everyone is also "pro-choice"; they are just against this particular choice.

Is everyone pro-choice? Do the anti-abortion rights activists argue for a particular abortion procedure which is acceptable?

Do the anti-abortion rights activists consider "pro-choice" to be "a grotesque semantic travesty"? Certainly some of us on the pro-choice side consider "pro-life" as an apt description of the anti-choice side to be a semantic travesty, if not grotesque.

If the recognizing a semantic travesty when I see one is a "delusion," Ms McArdle and I do not agree on the definition of delusion.

Methinks Ms McArdle is too thin skinned.

What think you, Dear Reader?

Abortion Rights
Megan McArdle
Semantics

Sphere: Related Content

Nappy Headed Hos

"Nappy headed hos" is a reprehensible phrase.

That being said, the brouhaha with Don Imus has a silver lining. Finally, the language of the rapster has come into the mainstream media, and is the subject of a long-overdue discussion by our melting pot of a nation.

I don't care what is "done" with Mr. Imus. I do care, though, that I do not hear enough discussion about the relationship between rapsters' use of derogatory language to describe the women in their lives.

I catch a glimpse of Jesse Jackson carrying a rainbow placard in protest against Mr. Imus; I do not hear him coming up with a Cosby-like condemnation of the language which makes such dissing of women the currency of the rap culture.

I get a sound bite of Al Sharpton (of Tawana Brawley fame, don't for one moment forget) saying that Mr. Imus' suspension of two weeks is insufficient, but I see or hear no sound bites of Mr. Sharpton condemning the virtual wholesale slurring of women in general and black women in particular in rap music.

Once again it falls to the women to take up the burden; the Rutgers women come to their own defense, and in language which shames the bloviators, say simply, "that's not me; that's not who I am."

That's not who most of the women in rapsters' lives are. These women shame them; these women shame the men who ostensibly are defending them when these men merely go after a symptom rather than the disease.

If the nation begins a conversation about propriety and respect, something good will have come of this reprehensible speech on Mr. Imus' part.

Imus should not be fired; he should be given "community service" and required to spend some time on his popular radio show discussing the ramifications of desultory language.

Don Imus
Rutgers Basketball
Pundits

Sphere: Related Content

Yoo Hoo, Non-Gay Cross-Dressers!

Here's a question for you: Are you happy to be included in the category of "Queer?"

According to Corey Scholibo, a respondent for The Advocate's letters, you are (well, not happy, but included). Here's the situation:

The Advocate recently ran an on-line headline which lumped Sam, the cross-dressing son on "The Riches," in with "queer" kids on television--the nephew on "Ugly Betty" had already made the pages of the print magazine (--any why is it virtually no one has commented on the great job the writers and Rami Malek are doing on The War at Home with the character of Kenny?).

I protested with an email to The Advocate: "So far nothing the character of Sam on "The Riches" has done indicates a same-sex sexual orientation. Your headline is misleading--"Queer kid on the block."

It wasn't too long before Scholibo answered, quite nicely, I thought, with:

Gene, Thank you for your response. I agree with you completely that there is nothing in the show that implies that the character is gay, as the story clearly states. Queer is a very encompassing term that often includes cross dressing, as it was forged to imply everything out of the realm of “normal,” and has been taken back by our community as a positive word. Nonetheless it was meant to be an adjective and not a noun, nor imply any sort of social group per say.

Thank you, Corey ScholiboArts & Entertainment Editor

Here's my problem (if there is a problem): when I was growing up, "queer" was not in fashion. When it was used as an adjective for someone with a "sexual perversion" (one of the terms du jour), it only meant gay men. (Remember, I'm talking years away from Christine Jorgensen.) Even lesbians weren't usually included.

When did "our community" (not to get into whoever it is who speaks for the community) expand queer to include transgenders and cross-dressers?

And how do non-gay men and women who are cross-dressers feel about that?

Or have they even noticed?

Just asking.
Cross Dressing
The Advocate
The Riches
Ugly Betty
The War at Home

Sphere: Related Content

NPR Watch 3/22/07

During today's letters segment, a listener asked why "Morning Edition" spent air time on the recent opening of a "Hooters" restaurant in Israel. Part of the letter asked if an opening of a Hooters would be covered in, say, Costa Rica.

Well, listener, no. The idea of Hooters restaurants stems from the testosterone infused fixation on the mammaries. If one sees a travel picture of Costa Rica, there's a good chance there will be a well endowed woman in a bikini; on the other hand, a similar picture of Israel is less likely to feature a "babe."

Wailing walls, mosques, suicide murders in Israel are far more likely to leap to mind than "hooters." So, an opening of a Hooters, unfortunately, is news--or at least an item of cultural interest.

Now, if you want to ask about the cultural impact of "hooters," much less "Hooters," you might get an interesting conversation going.

NPR
Culture

Sphere: Related Content

Tempest in a Teapot? Or Sac?

If you want to have insight into one of America's social problems, just jump over to "With One Word, Children's Book Sets Off Uproar" over at the New York Times.

Elementary school librarians all over the country are clucking about scrotum. Yep. Scrotum. Not images of chainsaw carrying murderers in newspaper ads, not screaming nymphs and decapitated Lotharios in television ads, Scrotum!--that most dangerous word to the peace and security of the nation.

It happens there's a new children's book, The Higher Power of Lucky, which has an early sentence which tells of an unlucky dog who'd been bitten on the scrotum by a rattlesnake.

According to the Times' Julie Bosman, this word has caused a virtual censorship of the book, even though it has won the Newberry Medal, a prestigious honor for children's literature.

It seems librarians and elementary school teachers don't want to have to explain the word to the children in their charge.

One librarian from Colorado gave Ms Bosman this quote, "“I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature. At least not for children.”

And why not? Mightn't some of our psycho-sexual social problems be mitigated with an early education about words which more formally identify various parts of the "genitalia?" Wouldn't it be better for children if they knew scrotum rather than nuts or balls? Vagina rather than pussy or (pardon me) the c-word?

In this time of "culture war" (a term used by the disingenuous right), isn't it better to have everyone know, and be able to use, acceptable language for all parts of the human body?

Over 40 years ago, a toddler nephew decided to "streak" the family at a Sunday dinner. His older brother, then about 5, shreiked with laughter, "I saw his penis!" I was momentarily stunned--"penis?!?" Then I thought my nephews were certainly on an easier path than the one set by my parents when I was told to be sure to "Wash your monk."

Elementary school librarians, in these times of heightened awareness are not to be faulted in this brouhaha. It's the responsibility of parents to help their children navigate the many paths to adulthood. A more judicious use of the language in speaking to children about the body would be a good place to focus attention. It would also help librarians to do their jobs.

Censorship
Sex Ed
Culture Wars

Sphere: Related Content