red fuzzy jesus

BA-DA-BING VI.3

Well, I got my wish.  Carmella was sitting in therapy this past week.  During the few minutes she sat and talked to Dr. Melfi she revealed more and showed more honesty than she has in five previous seasons.  Despite all else that went on this past week, that moment was the most interesting for me.  She admitted she knew what Tony was before she married him and that it may have been a reason for marrying him.  She acknowledged the broken arm behind the drill (but not the corpses behind the mansion) and accepted her role as complicit denier.  But she worried about her kids.  Seeing them older made her regret the position she put them in and what she was asking them to do by being quiet.  She also offered up her justification for why she could remain with someone for so many years knowing how much pain he caused others.  The answer: comparative ethics.  She could accept his criminal behavior for decades – or at least put it out of her mind – because she knew no matter how bad Tony was others were worse.  Is that really an excuse?

Her visit to Melfi followed another Carmella crack up.  She called A.J. a cross to bare, which he is, and then sobbed hysterically into her pillow.  Her parents aren’t supportive.  I was wondering if we’d see them at all during this Tony-coma episode.  Meadow and Ro are the closest things Carmella has to friends. 

I read once (and I can’t remember where so I’ll say Newsweek lest I Domenech myself) that a lot of the dialogue in the Sopranos consists of saying things when the opposite is true.  “I love ya, T.”  When Carmella ran into Melfi at the market and said she had plenty of people to talk to it was one of those times.  Carmella has a lot of people in the waiting room but they're just toadies of her husband with their own selfish interests.  Carmella needed to sit with Melfi and admit the conditions of her denial.  And Melfi, in customary brevity, managed to hit the nail with four words, “your children or you?”  Melfi recognized Carmella’s concerns for her children mirrored what she had lived with for twenty-some years.  And that therapy session was the first time we saw any sign of Carmella seriously considering another type of life.  Regardless of the justifications or if she really knew what she was getting into one thing Carmella cannot be excused for is those grown-out roots.  Geez, has Tony been out for six months? 

Tony’s dream sequence continued and it’s all about considering another type of life.  Kenji brought up a good point last week that even in a dreamt alternative reality Tony is still Tony.  There are similarities.  My favorite of which is Kevin Finnerty, Tony’s comatose alter-ego, is successful from legitimate business.  But he’s still in trouble with the law.  The analogy of a family reunion for heaven is interesting especially if the one family member who meets you at the gate is the one whose head you blew off.  And that inn did suggest more heaven than hell.  However, it’s for each to decide whether Tony is going to heaven or if the ‘family reunion’ was a fire salt mine waiting for him. 

And now it’s time to play, Spot! That! Gay! Joke!  Alright, hands on buzzers here’s our first clue.  This week’s reference to Vito’s sexuality included the one person who knows he’s gay.  If you said, “that creepy touch on Meadow’s boyfriend’s arm,” you’re a winner.  It’s Fin, short for Finnius, and thank goodness he was there or we might forget Vito is gay.  Ha ha, he’s gay!  That joke never gets old.  Thanks writers of the Sopranos. 

Despite all the support for Tony in the hospital, how many mob guys really wished he’d slip away?  Sil’s wife is eyeing the crown for him but Sil doesn’t seem up to the task of dividing ‘business’ up fairly.  Their self interested douche-baggery was on display in full effect this week with Pauly and Vito trying to stiff “the princess of little Italy,” Bobby asking for a decision from Sil while he’s being loaded into an ambulance, and Christopher bringing up the movie investment while Tony can barely drool.  Everyone’s in it for themselves and they’re just waiting for the next guy to get whacked so they can get a piece. 

And final tidbits, the drug heist was a little taste to remind us what these people do for a living.  A.J. is a piece of shit.  The writing teacher / screenwriter portions were hilarious, and Carmella’s mother is still the most worthless character on TV. 

All and all, I was really pleased with this episode.  It had the whole enchilada – some mafia stuff, some humor, some touching moments, and some introspection on the part of both Tony via the dream and Carmella via impromptu therapy.  They could all use more of the latter.  Many questions still remain including who’s in charge now if Tony doesn’t get a lot better quickly.  But bigger, series-long questions, such as what goes on in Carmella’s mind, received partial answers this week which for me is more satisfying. 

I’ve said it before, the show has to end somehow.  So I’m constantly looking for signs of resolution.  However, if there’s one thing that’s predictable about the Sopranos it’s that the writers want you to think one thing is going to happen when another string occurs instead.  I’m glad this episode wraps up the hospital and dreamy segment of our season.  Another week of that would have been too much.  And now we can all get on with our trapped, violent lives.  How’s it going to end, Carmella?  How’s it going to end?   

IN THE CLOSET WITH BEN DOMENECH IV

I’ll say a final word on poor disgraced “columnist” Ben Domenech and then let the dead horse lay.  By now most everyone knows that Washingtonpost.com (which is separate from The Washington Post paper edition) hired a 24 year old far-right activist and Bush appointee to offer a unique perspective to their opinion pages.  As Domenech has built his young career solely on inflammatory invectives to everyone who isn’t a right-wing White Christian, the progressive half of the blogosphere rose up to attack the Post.com’s decision.  Most of the criticism centered on Ben’s party-line activism absent a counterpoint blogger.  But as the bloggers dug – really they just Googled his articles’ excerpts – they found Ben to be a serial plagiarist.  What at first seemed to be some poor attribution while writing for the student paper in college was exposed as blatant cutting and pasting for publications like the National Review.  The examples of inarguable and inexplicable plagiarism grew till Ben “resigned” from the Post.com.

I said yesterday that I was uncomfortable fighting to get a blog removed simply because of its views no matter how offensive.  Using en masse protests to smother viewpoints is the calling card of the religious right and progressive minded people should have enough respect for pluralism to dispute arguments instead of just silencing them.  However, plagiarism is a good reason to fire a writer.  While it may seem mean for others to dig through your professional life to find fault, if you build that professional life on a foundation of animosity to so many you should not be surprised when that foundation causes your fall. 

The defense of Ben has been as interesting to watch as the attacks.  First “conservative” bloggers rushed to their keyboards to say that it was all a liberal hissy fit – a vast left-wing conspiracy if you will.  Then, even the fire-breathing uber-right site Ben co-founded, Redstate.com, acknowledged Ben had serious questions to answer.  It was sad because they kept posting updates to previous postings as reality took hold.  Ben flailed his drowning reputation around coming up with bizarre explanations such as P.J. O’Rourke had met him and given him permission to republish his work under Ben’s name.  But the NY Times found O’Rourke who said he never met Ben and never gave that sort of permission to anyone.  Ben claimed he wrote for two publications at once while working at the National Review and that’s why the same text appears in two different articles.  But the other articles clearly have other author’s names attached to them who are still alive to contradict.  Eventually, Ben re-posted ‘contrition’ on RedState admitting to rampant plagiarism. His rabid supporters on the site encouraged him to “take some time off.” 

Of all the defense of Ben the one most compelling is the argument that he made his mistakes when he was young and detractors shouldn’t be going into the histories of teenagers to find fault with their writings.  That is the most convoluted reasoning considering how Ben has been billed.  His bio boasts he’s the youngest Bush II appointee and has all these professional accomplishments at a young age.  Then when those accomplishments are put under scrutiny and found to be wanting we’re told we’re not supposed to pick on the work of people when they were younger and made mistakes.  He’s only 24 now! 

The story reminds me of poor disgraced Steven Glass.  My roommate, Tyghe, and I watched his biopic, Shattered Glass, a few months ago.  He too was a celebrated super successful kid at the age of 24 whom everyone praised for quick assent after college.    But his reputation began to unravel when examined by critics.  It may be an oversimplification but 24-year-olds shouldn’t be editors or senior anything for major publications.  It stands to reason that one grabbing the golden ring that quick cut some corners. 

Of course, Ben was trained exclusively for this type of work.  Much hay has been made about his home-schooling and his pedigree as the son of a Bush appointee.   While some home-schooled kids develop genius aptitudes for spelling bees and Geography olympics many who are home-schooled in order to prevent contradictory viewpoints just end up incapable of original thought.  The “pro-family” websites including Focus on the Family, which Ben wrote for, relentlessly pound the idea that parents should home-school to restrict secular influence on their children.  Put less kindly, the only way to create a foot soldier for the religious right as an adult is to saturate a child’s mind with limited perspective till all he can process is theo-poli rhetoric.  If Ben’s family followed the model of Dobson, and one would assume they did, then Ben’s childhood education consisted of mommy withholding the cookie plate until he prayed to Jesus, Mary, and Reagan.  A thoughtful mind is not constructed from this upbringing. 

Dr. Myers' piece summed up the analysis when he said he was “not surprised to learn that he [Ben] is the product of home schooling, which in its worst instances can foster an unfortunately narrow point of view, and usually means the kid is instructed by someone with absolutely no training in education.” 

Of course Ben went to the same college I did.  But by the time he got there he was so fixed with the theo-politics of his training that he thought it best to criticize the education system the entire time he was there.  While a student he wrote for Boundless – another site by Focus on the Family – in which he bi-weekly criticized how stupid the liberal professors were and how if he were in charge he’d have a whole different education model than the liberal elite.  His four years were just a formality while he waited to advance on DC with the rest of the Christian soldiers. 

Once out of college Ben had no original thought to present but parroted the same repetitious stuff that appears on all the pro-family sites.  What has struck me about Ben’s writings for RedState and Red America is their lack of personal perspective.  The judges on American Idol have an oft used criticism.  When a contestant gets all the notes and words to a song correct but fails to personalize the music they say the contestant sang karaoke instead of making the song their own.  Ben sang karaoke.  He was programmed as a child to utter the talking points of the religious right.  And nothing he wrote came from a personal observation but rather a rote recitation of specific activism.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Ben plagiarized.  He literally right clicked portions of other web pages, selected copy, and pasted them into his own posts.  The evidence is there and someone at the National Review online was asleep at the switch.  But this is exactly what he as a writer was trained to do.  Not think… not critically analyze and be a student of the world…  when new information was presented to him, even in college, if it did not match his programming it did not compute.  So what you are left with is a writer that can only spit out what has been allowed to get in. 

If you care enough to examine his writings, and you probably don’t, compare them to a similar topic on CWFA.com, Family.org, WND.com, or any of the other “pro-family” propaganda mills you will see endless redundancy.  Dogma is all they can sputter.   So, Ben Domenech was disgraced not because he was a religious right writer who got caught cheating but because the very essence of religious right writing is lack of original thought.  Because a writer needs to go through a process of finding his voice and developing a personal style he usually isn’t on top of the world at age 24.   It requires personal development over years to have an authentic and unique perspective on life. It also requires the type of formal and informal education that exposes you to viewpoints with which you disagree and people that live by different codes.  Without that type of development and influence Ben had nothing new to say.  The inability to speak personally rocketed him to success within the fandom of the far right but that same inadequacy is what caused his downfall once exposed to a wider audience.       

IN THE CLOSET WITH BEN DOMENECH III

When I was in high school I wasted far too many hours (really, days) of my life playing Doom II.  I’d love to use a cheat code to go into God mode.  That way I could wander around the level blowing everyone to bits while never taking any fire myself.  It was fun that way. 

Ben Domenech understandably did not like the plate of cold revenge served to him this week.  He told a Washington Post editor that he was surprised by the reaction and it was “a bit meaner” than he had anticipated.  Once the plagiarism accusations exploded he went back to his old site, Redstate.com, to weep on the shoulders of friends about how mean the liberal blogosphere had been to him. 

“Red America, my new blog at washingtonpost.com, has been under attack since its launch….  The hate mail that I have received since the launch of this blog has been overwhelmingly profane….  To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.” (cite) 

Ben Domenech wanted to play in God mode.  He has built a career out of some of the most hateful writing out there.  The reason why he is well known is because he goes far beyond the pale when lambasting his opponents.  When considering Ben’s heartfelt complaints about the lack of civility in political discourse, consider these gems from his previous writings:

Domenech has called cartoonist Ted Rall a "steaming bag of pus"; said Teresa Heinz Kerry looks like an "oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet"; and described Post.com's "White House Briefing" columnist Dan Froomkin as "an embarrassment." (cite)

He also called Coretta Scott King a communist and said the Supreme Court killed more people than the KKK.  (cite)

My favorite quote from RedSate is:  “Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.”

Why are the bloggers so mean to Ben? 

The second meanest thing the bloggers did to him was post his own words.  Ben had hoped he could build up success writing nasty things that fed the blood lust of the unhinged fringe.  But when he put on his suit and tie for his Washingtonpost.com photo and fired up the blog there, he wanted to pretend to be professional and above all this partisan cruelty. 

Of course the meanest thing the bloggers did to him was post examples of plagiarism over and over and over and over again.  Again, they just called attention to his own doings.  That’s not mean.  If they attributed words to him he didn’t say or deeds he didn’t do that would be mean.  Just showing what someone has been doing with their time for the past seven years isn’t mean unless that person has an awful lot to hide. 

Ben was initially attacked not because he’s conservative – though he’d like you to believe that – but because he’s known for hurtful rhetoric aimed at easy targets.  Eventually someone in the game was going to fire back.  Instead of blaming his downfall on the lack of civility in politics, Ben should take a hard look at how he’s contributed to lowering the bar.  When his mother was Jesus-training him at home school she should have brought up the golden rule.  Treating others the way he’d like to be treated could have prevented his troubles.   

IN THE CLOSET WITH BEN DOMENECH II

I’ve been conflicted about the proper response to the new blog on the Washington Post’s website, Red America.  I disagree with its ideology but, more importantly I disagree with its approach.  (More on that later)  My concerns now are a personal hypocrisy check before I criticize anyone else. 

Many have asked me before why I’m so hard on the religious right.  They’re just a group that disagrees with me who wants a place at the table of discourse.  A lot of groups disagree with me.  I pay special attention to the religious right because they’re the only block of special interest groups that doesn’t just want a place at the table – they want there not to be a table. 

What is troubling about the religious right is how they use the full power of their protected rights to lobby to have those same rights removed from others.  And they’ve been quite successful.  It honestly isn’t a left/right thing.  If some lefty ideological group tried the same thing I would be just as upset.  Take for example some of the animal rights groups.  I volunteered for PETA briefly in college and they equally operate purely from ideology rather than pragmatism and apply their ideology to every conceivable issue.  If somehow PETA had their people in all three branches of government and were seriously pushing a constitutional amendment to ban the consumption of meat, I’d be just as concerned about that group having too much power, too much representation for a single-minded ideology at the expense of other interests.  And I’m a vegetarian! 

Over and over again we see the religious right use their influence to take away the voice of others.  The AFA has a boycott going against Ford simply because Ford runs ads in gay-themed magazines like Advocate.  They don’t stop at disagreeing with Advocate and advancing an alternative position.  They protest and boycott every single advertiser till they scare them away.  They don’t want the Advocate to exist.  They don’t want anything to exist that shares an opposing view.  And we see these actions against literally hundreds of corporations, schools, even church’s.  If you dare have dissent against the religious right’s agenda prepare to be harassed and sued into oblivion.

So, from stage FAR right enters a new blogger for the Washington Post.  I’ve known about this guy for a while because I went to college with him and his name pops up periodically attached to an article that makes me cover my mouth and gasp.  He has made a name for himself by acting as some sort of political Howard Stern making repeatedly inflammatory statements you can’t believe someone let’s slip in private much less posts in public.  As I wrote yesterday, the blogosphere went nuts this week over this guy.  Many called for the post to remove this blog from their website.  I wrote a letter to Deborah Howell, the ombudsman of the Washington Post, explaining why I thought the decision to create such a blog was a bad idea.  But I made it clear I was not asking for its removal.  I’m concerned with being as bad as the religious right. 

One of the main things the usual suspects of the right protest is television.  They crowed for a weeks about getting the Book of Daniel cancelled on NBC claiming it was their boycott of sponsors and letter writing campaigns that sunk it.  Really it was a mid-season try-on.  Those usually fail anyway.  The religious right diligently goes after shows with which they disagree either launching into campaigns against their advertisers or have the FCC fine them out of existence.  And they claim to have cancelled many.  That’s always disturbed me.  For one thing, there are 900 channels on TV now and you can watch everything from Mtv’s Spring Break to cooking with Emeril to big pink-haired ladies reading the Bible.  There’s 7th Heaven and Sex and the City.  You get to choose and if you don’t like the content of a program, all TVs come with remote controls.  If you don’t think there’s a program that adequately represents your views start one but don’t drive everything you don’t like off the TV. 

I’ve often been offended by what the 700 Club says.  Particularly right after 911 they went on the air to say repeatedly that God had allowed America to be attacked because of Gays and liberals.  That’s way more offensive than anything on Desperate Housewives.  But I’ve never started a petition to have NBC affiliates no longer carry the 700 Club.  They have every right to get on the TV and espouse their warped views.  I have every right not to watch them if it makes me mad.  The difference between people like me and the religious right is I respect the free marketplace of ideas enough to accept its variety while they mainly concern themselves with running dissent out of town. 

Cut to our friend the blogger:  If I and other like minded people asked the Post to cancel this blog, are we not as bad as the religious right?  Aren’t we squashing viewpoints with which we disagree because we can’t stand the soapbox being under someone else’s feet?  In a way, yes.  But also, I think this might be different. 

The role of the press in a free society is to question those in power and provide a useful tool for citizens to hold their leaders accountable.  When one party and one group of interests within that party seem to control every aspect of government it becomes increasingly necessary for the press to question and criticize those in power.  By creating Red State the post has done the opposite.  It has given an exclusive voice to a cheerleader for both the commanding regime and its supporting base.  While their other blogs may present opposing views on individual issues, there are none that are solely concerned with championing the success of one party the ways Red America is – and this is an election year. 

Ben apologized yesterday, sort of, for calling Coretta Scott King a communist when she died.  While I accept anyone’s apology his rationale that it was justified because Mrs. King supported abortion and gay rights frightens me.  For too long now people have been labeled communists, terrorists, and anti-American for having different views than the ruling party.  It’s a new McCarthyism and it’s as Un-American now as it was then.  The role of the press, as in Good Night and Good Luck, should be calling this hegemony into question, not enabling it.   

Furthermore, a home-schooled Bush II appointee and son of a Bush I appointee with no real journalism experience may not be the best person to write opinion columns.  Much is coming out now about Ben’s plagiarism* and I’m concerned the fella doesn’t have a clue about journalistic ethics.  A young man literally programmed from birth to utter the talking points of one interest group and one party cannot provide thoughtful analysis of issues.  All the Post has done is give an exclusive campaign tool to one side without equivalent tools to the other during a year of heated campaigns.  This is not what the Post or any news organization in a free society should be doing. 

For this reason I don’t think the post should run such a blog unless they balance it with an unapologetic Democratic cheerleader.  And the Post should concern itself with holding leaders accountable regardless of their affiliations but should pay special attention to one side if that side temporarily controls everything.  Ben’s writings fit better on fringe right websites like James Dobson’s; whom he’s written for before.  But absent a contrary column the Post is giving an exclusive voice to a group that wants to be THE exclusive voice.  And that’s as backwards as calling Mrs. King a communist.   

***************************************
*Plagiarism: cite 1, cite 2, cite 3, cite 4, cite 5  The Best of these is Solon.com's Potrait of a Blogger as a Young Plagiarist

Also, this disclaimer now appears on William & Mary's Flat Hat "Editor's note: It has been brought to the attention of The Flat Hat that Ben Domenech, a writer for The Flat Hat from 1999 to 2001, copied from and failed to cite sources in several articles. The Flat Hat is currently investigating these allegations."

Poor little puppy in the coliseum.

IN THE CLOSET WITH BEN DOMENECH

I’m a Johnny-come-lately this week by waiting till now to say anything about the Post’s new blogger.  I’m at least two days behind the other blogs which, in blogosphere time, is like I just got my cool new yellow Livestrong bracelet.  After reading endless kvetching about the huge platform handed to the far-right Ben Domenech (and this saucy jewel from my good buddy Jon) I think it’s time for old RFJ to bring up the rear by focusing on what hasn’t been said about this kid.  For starters, RFJ assumes any sentence including the words ‘up the rear’ would make Benny very uncomfortable. 

The reaction to Ben’s new Blog was frantic for good reason.  Boy wonder has been out writing opinions right of Ann Coulter for some time now.  He cut his teeth writing for such mainstream centrists as James Dobson’s Citizen Link and there are numerous links out there demonstrating railings against, well, everyone who isn’t a white Christian.  My favorite is the post by his pseudonym, Augustine, in which he labels Coretta Scott King a Communist – on her funeral.  Surprised and a little put off by the flurry of angst following the launch of Red America, Ben “Commented on the comments” by saying he hopes to be “engaging you in a serious, respectful discussion on the issues that matter most.”  If serious and respectful are the adjectives he grasps at now it represents a stark departure from the cannon of his previous writings. 

Ben gets off to a good start echoing in his very first post the same thing Rush has been wrong about for 10 years.  He claims Democratic ideas have lost at the ballot box for decades.  They haven’t.  The Republicans have been on the wrong side of history on everything from the civil rights movement to social security.  A Republican president and congress shelled out the cash for Medicare, let social security reform die, ran up the debt, and created whole new bureaucratic departments.  Democratic ideas have been so popular that Republicans only win when they adopt them.

Ben continues his alternative reality by buying into to the media construct of Red and Blue America.  Cable news came up with dividing the country into two distinct nations to provide simple explanations for more complex political phenomena.  The rigorous data of social science, as well as common sense, has shown that America is very purple with most preferring a middle-of-the-road position on controversial issues including abortion.  Ben prefers to think of the country as two different worlds, one being better than the other in every way. 

Ben brings it home by claiming Red America is misunderstood and ignored by the mainstream media.  This is a popular and, frankly, tired claim by those on the right.  I rarely see progressive ideas represented in the mainstream news media with any degree of fairness.  They gave Bush a free pass on the war in Iraq but three years later the “crazy liberal” claim that the war wasn’t justified is now shared by two-thirds of the whole country, red and blue.  Social conservatives have watched the minorities they oppress claim ground by pointing out unfair and often illegal discrimination so they’ve incorporated the strategy.  You repeatedly hear now how conservative Americans are a disenfranchised, oppressed minority who just can’t get a fair shake on TV.  It’s duplicitous and pathetic. 

What Ben would like to believe is that all inhabitants of his make believe red world share his extreme far right views and kiss the ring of Don Jimmy Dobson the way he has.  He describes his Red America as church-going and red-blooded.  Yet he fails to recognize that a lot of church-going, red-blooded people don’t hate gays, assign personhood to one celled organisms in Petri dishes, or support war for no reason the way he and his fringe right counterparts do.  The far right claims a non-existent majority by projecting their reactionary views on a public that repeatedly shows a preference for middle ground.  The idea that only “Red Americans” are real Americans and everyone else is a crazy blue-state loony who eats nothing but tofu and sushi is itself a nasty form of elitism and exclusivity.  A lifelong resident of the beltway suburbs and someone who was home-schooled and trained to be a shill for the religious right from birth is hardly qualified to be a spokesperson for the average Joe. 

Oddly, Ben followed his Red State whine fest with a follow-up post claiming today’s DC Republicans are not the adult versions of the fat, belligerent brats you endured on the playground as a child.  He whines about the poor, ignored American conservative then claims the crux of conservative angst these days isn’t whining.  Again he takes a swipe at those lesser than him, those who aren’t card carrying members of his Red America, by claiming kids in Berkeley California aren’t representative of real America.  They’re just descendents of that alien race with which he disagrees.  His post is a response to the amateur pop-psychology floating around that tries to explain the bizarre carnival sideshow of the current administration.  Absent any threat from Iraq, people grope for understanding as to why we went to war and what we think we’re doing there now.  Everyone’s a doctor as explanations ranging from Bush’s alcoholism to his need to prove he’s manly abound. 

Ben has his own little explanation for the Iraq war.  He of course explains the Iraq war as “a coherent and just strategy for defending America in response to the first major attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor.”  Drinking the Kool-Aid at the religious right’s mental programming camp has had scary effects on poor Ben’s mind.  Iraq didn’t attack us on 911 and Saddam Hussein had no connection to those who did.  Invading Iraq does not follow logically from the attacks of 911.  Turning Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism while we ignore other known terror-sponsoring states is not part of a coherent strategy.  It’s an incoherent mess 2/3 of America has caught on to.  Trying to paint the war in Iraq as a legitimate response to 911 is just embarrassing in March 2006.  Even his precious red states no longer buy that bunk.       

And today Ben rounds out his conservative echo chamber by using the same old tactic the absolutist pro-lifers have used for years.  Step 1: tell a story about some innocent person, usually a child, being killed without giving the full background of the case.  Step 2: Connect this to some larger cultural illness that claims people don’t value human life.  Step 3:  Use the false claim of cultural illness to justify the government making every personal medical decision for you and blocking medical research that could improve the lives of people we’re supposed to be valuing.  Luckily Ben didn’t follow all the instructions in his paint-by-number kit because he didn’t explicitly use Step 3.  But the implication is there. 

All of the hoopla concerning this blog is deserved.  Considering the history of Ben’s writings it is really troubling the post is not concerned with providing a platform for counterpoint.  But the alternative is not necessarily what some might assume.  I’d like to see the Post give equal weight to a pragmatic problem solver to counter the ideological ramblings of the religious right.  I’d like to see the Post give as much space to someone who seeks to find authentic American consensus rather than exploit an ‘us v. them’ divisive construct.  Red America is a joke because it seeks to cover a place that doesn’t exist and is written by a guy trying to speak for middle America when he can’t. So far it has been nothing but a repetition of the same tired and disproved claims of James Dobson, World Net Daily, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other rightwing parrots.  AmericaBlog described poor Ben’s foray into the big leagues as “like watching a puppy walk into the Coliseum. You're horrified by what you're about to see, but at the same time, you really want to get some popcorn.”  If all Ben has to offer is the fringe-right theocratic garbage of his previous writings, the slaughter will be swift and brutal.       

BA-DA-BING VI.2

The big question for the Sopranos this week was not ‘will Tony live or die.’  At least not for me.  The show might be in its last season but I don’t think they’d kill off the main character.  Of course, Tony may live and be brain damaged or otherwise unable to lead the family.  The doctor said that was a possibility and in his dream he has a concussion with the beginnings of Alzheimer’s.  Having Tony incapacitated could set off a violent power struggle paralleling the internal conflicts in the New York family because it isn’t clear who Tony’s successor is or who’s in charge now.  And Jr. is too batshit to contribute.  Tony’s recovery could be the beginning of the end.  But there are other questions that loom very big.

Will Edie Falco win an Emmy for best actress?  I don’t watch the Emmy’s but I hear at the ceremony following her crazy, sick Carmella who finally kicks Tony out she didn’t win.  Not only that, her face did a poor job of concealing the disappointment.  Regardless of how you feel about Carmella the character, you have to admit the actress Falco pours all she can in it.  In this episode we see Edie in familiar Emmy territory again.  Haggard face, no make-up, spastic crying, swinging from sweet to weepy to vicious, it’s all there.  Damn you Marcia Gay Harden. 

With your father in a coma…

Will A.J. join ‘The Family?’  It certainly looks like their pushing things in that direction.  If you were a guidance counselor what career would you suggest for a young Italian man who’s dumb as a rock, fails out of school, and has no skills or interests except selfish desires for high end purchases?  Sounds like a promising future in organized crime to me.  The clincher is his promise to put a bullet in Jr.’s head.  Sign him up. 

With your father in a coma…

Are they making Meadow’s boyfriend a major character?  What’s his name, Sven?  He’s heavily featured in all the previews and he may drop out of dental school to “support Meadow.”  There are a lot of guys that would like to support Meadow.  She was looking particularly supportable this episode. 

Are jokes about Vito’s sexual orientation going to be a weekly occurrence?  I hope not.  Last week I pointed out the overt cramming of the wiener.  This week he postulated that Gene could have killed himself because he was gay and didn’t have anyone he could tell.  This, of course, is Vito projecting.  But it’s classic Sopranos gallows humor.  Something very serious is plunked down in a way that provides levity.  Only, that seems to be all gay characters in entertainment are good for lately.  Is Vito just there to provide the weekly Brokeback joke?  Everyone can take their ridicule but I hope that’s not all Vito or his gayness are used for. 

Finally, will anyone in the family make the connection between their suffering and empathy for others?  I feel for Carmella and Meadow as they wait hoping by Dad’s side.  But how many grieving mothers, wives, and kids has Tony been responsible for in his career?  The juxtaposition of cutting to Gene’s widow sobbing was good but the point could have been made stronger.  Think about poor Aunt Ro and the Jewish son in law’s family from last week.  Tony has put countless people and their loved ones in worse situations than he’s in while Carmella and co. turn a blind eye.   It reminds me of the first episode when the former head of the family, Jackie, lay in the hospital dying of cancer.  One of the mob guys asked, “What kind of god allows this to happen.”  What kind of god allows a mob boss to get cancer?  Probably a pretty just and benevolent one. 

Finally, how long will the dream sequence last?  Last season they made a whole episode a surreal dream for Tony to work through in therapy.  They give a lot of insight into Tony’s psyche but the weirdness can seem drawn out as you wait for the real story to advance.  The thing to note about this dream was how Tony spoke.  His pronunciation and tone were demure.  Obviously the dream shows Tony wishes he could have a normal job and achieve praise through conventional methods.  He wishes for a happy, normal family.  But more essentially he wishes he wasn’t a big dump yob who can’t make a ‘th’ sound.  The dream focuses on trading briefcases with a sophisticated Tony look-a-like.  Will Melphi help him figure out he really wants to trade up his life?  Or will this last season be like the dreamed away season of Dallas? 

Sigh… so many questions.  This latest episode was light on the mafia stuff and heavy on the family drama.  I have a feeling next week we’ll go back to some mob guy wrangling.  Like waiting outside a hospital room, fans know this is the last season of the Sopranos and the question is not will it die but how.  Removing Tony as leader is a good way to move this show toward closure.  I don’t know about Tony, but if I were laying in a coma and Carmella were inches away from me with that weed-whacker voice and stroking my head with her giant cornchip nail tips, I’d RUN for the light.  But we’ll just have to see how well big bear pulls through.   

HOW ABOUT NOW?

This used to be a full fledged article. Then I found a story on the web that referenced the exact same studies but did it more concisely and with more sass. 
I like this article better.  Red Fuzzy Jesus is nothing if not humble. 

The study and article should inspire a personal gut check.  How partisan are you?  I can’t stand George Bush but I don’t want to see him harmed.  Do you really wish death on Hilary Clinton?  Personal responsibility is reliant upon rational thought.  And while some brain activity may be involuntary, we can all check our own ordering of opinions to find if the reasoning areas were ever stimulated.  A good self-administered test may be trying to remember the last time your mind was changed even just a little bit.  The 18-year-old you might have thought your parents were always wrong.  Looking back, was the 18-year-old you always right?   How about now?

BA-DA-BING VI.1

The Sopranos came in like a lion with their sixth season.  Thank heavens for on-demand.  I was out of the country for the first episode but have caught up this week.  It was delicious.  Let’s hope the subsequent ones will justify the build up and two-year wait. 

Let’s get things started with a weirdo voiceover and a sexy little strip tease.  Meadow is presumably still engaged.  Poor guy, his face was smashed in with a shovel shortly after birth but she still loves him.  Anthony is in school.  It looked like community college but I couldn’t tell.  His long hair makes him look the part of the degenerate shit he is.  While Tony worries needlessly about his son’s sexual orientation (“event planning!!?”), Carmella harbors a deeper fear that the apple won’t fall far from the loutish tree.  Vito has slimmed down but it’s all relative because he’s still roley-poley.  Did you catch him shoving a big bunless wiener in his mouth?  That’s a not-so-subtle way of reminding us that the one wearing the Rod Roddy jacket is gay.   

Throughout the series the most compelling character for me has always been Carmella.  I know most hate her more than they sympathize but she’s the one I’d like to see in therapy.  To me Carmella operates on a default pathological denial.  She has to.  To some extent she knows what goes on around her but she can’t carry on a half-normal life while accepting harsh realities.  When Adrianna “left Christopher” she accepted the story outright.  Her imbibing of these explanations reminds me of the memory zappers in Men In Black used after alien sightings.  Only, for Carmella the flash is self-administered.  She noted at the Japanese restaurant how odd it was that her friend never called after leaving but never pressed anyone for answers beyond their onion skin stories.  But Adrianna appeared in a dream and Carmella told her she was worried.  She thinks she could end up like her. 

Carmella knows what could happen to Tony.  More so, she knows what could happen to her if she pries, if she talks, if she objects.  She is kept quiescent with a constant string of gifts.  The Porsche Cayenne was just the latest injection of her relaxant. Tony called her on her materialism in their big fight before the separation telling her she wouldn’t have been happy with a heart on a necklace and a Hondai in the driveway.  But secretly she wants to earn her own money and somehow gain security where there can be none.   That’s why she berated her father for endangering her investment.  That’s why it stung when Angie showed off the boxer she’d bought herself.  Carmella’s harsh grating bitchiness masks some deep needs and the desperation that comes from knowing they can never be met.  But she knew what she was getting into and she made her bed.  She’s not a bawd she’s a kept woman.  I’ll let you decide if there’s a meaningful distinction. 

A running theme in the Sopranos is entrapment.  Just about everyone shows signs of wanting to get out but is blocked at every attempt.  Tony makes no progress in therapy.  Adrianna got whacked.  Poor Gene saw another life in pictures, on the computer, in descriptions over the phone.  But his oath to the family and aid to the feds prevented escape.  His wife pushed hard but, like Carmella, she knew the deal.  She knew what she was part of in a way.  There’s one way out for these guys – death.  The scene with Gene convulsing at the end of a rope was equally captivating and repellant.  Really, it was an act of selflessness.  With him gone his family is not held back by ties to the good or the bad.  His wife can take the inheritance and live in Florida while getting her son some help.  It’s sad, but for mob guys with wives the best thing they can do is kill themselves.  And considering that these wives trade so much for possessions and have men as banks, Gene just held up his end of the deal to an extreme degree.  (One would think that a professional killer would construct a better noose, no?) 

Then there’s the big cliff hanger.  When I got back to the States I was careful.  I didn’t visit CNN or a lot of other websites.  I warned my roommates and actually avoided conversations with friends I knew were fans.  That’s because Newsweek had tipped me off that there was a ‘big bang’ to start the season.  I assumed, like the writers wanted, that Tony was about to have a heart attack.  Vito, that fat fuck, alluded to it.  Tony weighed in at 280.  He breathes like Darth Vader.  But instead, crazy uncle Ju landed one in Tony and we’re left to wonder if help got to him in time.  If I remember correctly, last season there were always previews of the next week’s episode.  Not this time.  I guess they want us to wonder if Tony dies.  No way. 

Season Five was largely criticized for being the season when nothing happened.  Other than Adrianna getting shot, little advanced.  Carmella and Tony got back together but that was less moving forward than returning to start.  The Feds had new tactics but no substantive progress.  And the season was light on the killings that loom so ominous over all the characters’ lives.  This first episode seemed to be making up for it by showing Gene dangle, Carmella repress and Tony take a bullet.  It looks like an exciting season.  But, for God’s sake, I don’t need to see Janice’s breast - whether it has a chimplette hanging off it or not.      

MORAL PLURALISM AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

If you've wondered why I haven't posted short-form articles as frequently lately, it's because I've been working on a huge piece about moral pluralism for school.  Final drafts were submitted to the department on March 10, just before I left for Iceland.  Below is the title, abstract, and table of contents for that work.  The full text will be posted in the Blue Room in PDF format once final edits are completed.
******************************************

Moral Pluralism and Reproductive Rights:
Examinations of Liberal Strategies and Honorable Terms of Surrender in the Abortion Wars

Abstract

Pluralism is an inherent component of any society and poses specific challenges to liberal democracy.  The most problematic form of pluralism is moral pluralism or competition among varying views of the human good for representation in government.  In extreme cases moral pluralism can result in the loss of social order.  Attitudes and arguments regarding abortion rights represent the most irreconcilable instance of moral pluralism in contemporary politics.  To bridge the absolutisms of the abortion wars requires a rethinking of formal institutions in liberal democracy.  Moral Pluralism and Reproductive Rights examines the strategies of Political Liberalism, Perfectionist Liberalism, and Discourse Theory and assesses their practical abilities to rectify governable consensus.   

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Concept of Pluralism

Chapter 2: Liberal Democracy and the Challenge of Pluralism

Chapter 3: Pluralism in Classic Social Contract Theory
3.1 Hobbesian Conformity Under Comprehensive Authority
3.2 Machiavelli’s Opposite but Equally Valid Viewpoints
3.3 Locke’s Individual Autonomy

Chapter 4: The Unique Challenge of Moral Pluralism
4.1 Moral Pluralism and Social Unrest
4.2 The Inadequacy of Non-Transformative Theories
4.3 Resolution through Discourse
4.4 Irresolution through Discourse

Chapter 5: The Irreconcilable Moral Pluralism of Abortion
5.1 Supreme Court Nominees and the “Unholy Alliance”
5.2 The Two Extreme Camps in Abortion/Anti-Abortion Activism
5.3 New Challenges to Roe v. Wade
5.4 Evolution of “Christian” Activism on the Issue of Abortion
5.4.1 The Current Absolutist Position of “Christian” Activists
5.4.2 Current Assertions of Personhood From the Moment of Conception
5.4.3 Catholic History on the Prohibition of Abortion
5.4.4 Protestant History on the Prohibition of Abortion
5.5 Unquestionable Power of “Christian” Political Activists
5.6 Counter Absolutism on Reproductive Rights

Chapter 6: Transformative Solutions to Moral Pluralism
and the Issue of Abortion

Chapter 7: Seeking Satyagraha

Chapter 8: Limits on the Enforcement of Particular Interests
8.1 Political Liberalism and the Paramount of Individualism
8.2 Defining Political Liberalism and Moral Relativism
8.2.1 Political Liberalism as an Incomprehensive System
8.2.2 Self Respect and Respect for Others
8.2.3 Distinguishing Political Liberalism from Moral
Relativism
8.3 Societal Spheres
8.3.1 Varying Significance Within Spheres Resulting
in Divergent Value Systems and Worldviews
8.3.2 Particular Significance and Shared Values
8.4 Restrictions on Particular Significance in Law
8.4.1 Respecting Personal Choices
8.4.2 Protecting Individualism vs. Total Neutrality
8.4.3 Satyagraha through Restricting Particular
Significance
8.4.3.1 Applying the Restriction of Irrational
Premises to Abortion Case Law
8.4.4 Particular Significance and the Definition of
Personhood
8.4.5 Rational Determinates of Personhood
8.5 Restricted Premises with Unconstrained Discourse
8.6 Form or Practice of Liberalism
8.7 Criticism of Elliminating Irrational Premises
8.7.1 Over Limited Government
8.7.2 Practical Limits to Restricting Irrational Premises
8.7.3 Limited Government and Enabling Individual
Autonomy

Chapter 9: Personal Autonomy through Government Endorsed Morality
9.1 Legal Positivism, Morality and Law
9.1.1 Distinguishing Legal Positivism from Moral
Relativism
9.1.2 Legal Positivism and Moral Assertion
9.2 Perfectionist Liberalism
9.2.1 Perfectionist Liberalism and Informed Choices
9.2.2 Perfectionist Liberalism and Civil Institutions
9.2.3 Perfectionist Liberalism and the Harm Principle
9.2.4 Perfectionist Liberalism and Abortion Rights
9.3 Satyagraha through Shared Political Victories

Chapter 10: Shared Interests vs. Extremist Activism
10.1 Strategic Discourse Theory
10.2 Deconstructing Rhetoric
10.2.1 Derivative Rights and the False Notion of
Personhood
10.2.2 Personhood Defined by the Presence of Interests
10.2.3 Life Absent the Qualifications of Personhood
10.3 Intrinsic Human Value
10.3.1 Intrinsic Value vs. False Personhood
10.4 Detached View of Rights
10.4.1 Detached Respect for Human Life
10.5 Shared Interests
10.5.1 Defining Value
10.5.1.1 True Human Value
10.5.2 Assignment of Human Value
10.6 Contradictions in Personhood Assertions
10.6.1 In-Vitro Fertilization and the
Personhood at Conception Myth
10.6.2 Women as Biological Vessels
10.6.3 Disposable Biological Vessels
10.6.4 Pro-Choice Activism and Women’s Wellbeing
10.7 Consensus Arguments
10.7.1 Satyagraha through Strategic Discourse

Chapter 11: Constructing Satyagraha

Chapter 12: Conclusions

WHY SO HIGH?

I admit I haven’t been saying much about the news lately.  I watch it.  I read it.  I sometimes even discuss it but only when backed into a corner and forced to make some academic chit-chat.  Most of my reactions are non-verbal.  They include headshaking and heavy sighs.  At best a turrets-syndrome expletive escapes my mouth before switching to Mtv.  Even my favorite hour on TV, Meet the Press, has been intolerable.  Story after story after story is just awful with the spin-bots command controls set to nonsense.  I used to get a little tinge of pleasure when I heard the Bush administration had been caught lying or the president said something stupid.  Now I’m just, well, shocked an awed – to use a cliché.  One question keeps rolling in my skull.  Who the hell are these 30%?

The news is all a flutter this week about Bush’s new low(er) approval ratings.  A CBS poll put him at 34%.  CNN.Gallop was kinder with a whopping 38%.  Just about every other poll has him somewhere in between with Newsweek being the anomalous bearer of 40%+.  In my flip past the news channels on my way to Sopranos on-demand I saw CNN, CNN Headline News, and MSNBC all give these polls some attention.  What troubled me is that the anchors on each of the supposed liberal-bias elite machine networks were shocked by Bush’s inability to pull his numbers up for months.  The State of the Union didn’t help.  Some other purple-finger waving spectacle in Iraq didn’t help.  Off-year governors’ elections certainly didn’t help.  The journalists acted shocked it’s so low.  Really, I’m watching it and I’m shocked his approval is that high.  I understand there are plenty of red-blooded, red-stated Americans for whom Bush can do no wrong but 34%? – really? 

The Vice President shot someone in the face.  Now, accidents happen but the unfortunate occurrence gave us a clear picture into the operations of the administration.  A hunting accident is sad but what was disturbing was the default aversion to the slightest transparency in government.  The refusal to let anyone know it happened then absolute stonewalling to the press was unreasonable.  The administration acts like it’s absurd for anyone to question them on anything and refuses to answer questions even when the subject involves “no wrongdoing” and no policy.  They would prefer that room with all the reporters in the White House be converted to another display area for dishes. 

But the VP shooting incident is not the most serious concern.  Where to start:  There’s the videotape of the President getting briefed on the likelihood of the levies breaking BEFORE Katrina hit and his trademark distant stare and lack of questions or interest (frightening lack of concern).  There’s the handing over of port security to, my god, the United Arab Emirates.  There’s civil war breaking out in Iraq.  (Don’t tell me there’s the potential for civil war in Iraq.  The blowing up of the Shi temple is part of a civil war that predates Hussein.  Our men and women are just in the crossfire.  Remember, keeping them there means you “support” our troops!)   Then there’s domestic wiretapping.  We’re told during times of war the President is allowed to spy on anyone at anytime, keep mass databases of their conversations, and is not required congressional oversight or the inconvenience of a warrant.  Bush insists he only listens to terrorists but too eagerly equates opposition with terrorism.  If all his tapping is copasetic it seems odd he would oppose retroactive warrants so fervently.  Unless, of course, he fears the courts’ definition of “terrorists” may not quite match his.  But 30% still say “A-Okay!”

I realize I spend a lot of my time at a liberal university in the indigo city.  This is not the natural habitat for roamers of Bush country.  But I would love to question one of the 30-percenters to decipher what about Bush is so appealing.  He failed to reform social security.  Iraq is a mess.  Our ports are being handed over to the UAE.  No one knows where Bin Laden is.  A major U.S. city was deluged 6 months ago and people still don’t have tents.  The economy sucks.  The bureaucracy has ballooned, again.  Not a single bullet item of last year’s or this year’s State of the Union address has been accomplished nor have any of his campaign promises materialized.  The only thing Bush has done for his supporters is put a religious nut, Scalito, on the Supreme Court who in his first opinion sided against the religious nuts.  His approval rating has been in the toilet so long the GOP congress members up for reelection in ’06 are fleeing like rats on a sinking ship.  What exactly about Bush’s job performance is good?  What area of the country is his administration managing well?  And what would they have to do for some people to disapprove?

Sometimes I think there are people out there so incapable of critical analysis that the Bush administration could land some buckshot in their own faces and they’d still smile and applaud.  I’m convinced there are concentrations within both parties that don’t care about effective governance and instead just blindly back their man.  I was too optimistic about how many.  There’s some talk this week that Arnold has all but given up on amending the Constitution to allow him to be president.  If that’s the case, can we instead focus on an amendment that allows Bill Clinton to reoccupy the oval office?  I could really go for an oral sex scandal right about now.  Ah, the 90s…  when the only person getting shot in the face around the White House was a well-bred, well-fed intern and there were still hints of accountability in government.  Those were the days.