Changing The Damn Channel

The FCC is looking into complaints that the opening to last Monday's MNF (Monday Night Football) was somehow not suitable for network television.

Last week 66 ABC affiliates refused to air Saving Private Ryan for fear that the FCC would impose historically large fines for profanity unedited from the theatrical version of the film which ABC broadcast.

That's why I admire Larry Flynt.

See, Flynt stands at the forefront of the battle for free speech. He fights for the right to say what is unpopular, inelegant, and downright nasty. And without him, we wouldn't have that right. Or the right to say what others may call offensive. Or maybe the right to say anything at all, except maybe to shout praises to god during soccer games.

For 224 years, America stood for the right of her citizens to express their beliefs, opinions, agreement, dissent, and whimsy. Since 2001, it seems that has changed. The Uneasy Queasy Call It Sleazy Crowd has been taking over the conversation about Conversation. They claim to support the right of anyone to express an opinion, but quietly demand that the opinion be in line with their own. They seek to wrest control of decency standards from the local communities to create a national policy. They use decency standards not to protect those who are unable to properly process harsh or frightful images, but to quash debate for political gain. They have co-opted the vocabulary of victimization to accomplish this task. They claim it is their free speech which is impeded, until such claims saturate our society (hardly legitimizing said complaint).

Trouble is, their demonstrated goal for America is profoundly more dangerous than the forms of speech from which they seek to protect us. While the expression of "unwholesome" speech of any kind can lead to all the societal ills to which the Don't Say Boobies Contingent says they will, it is also entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that they won't. Sure, society could crumble under the weight of such weighty ideas, but it hasn't so far—and trust me, these "indecent" ideas have been around almost as long as the media used to communicate them, including cave paint. So I doubt society is in any real danger from indecency.

But the control of ideas, the bottlenecking of thought, will break society. At least democratic society. That's because democracy, like any form of government, relies upon an informed sovereign, that can make decisions based on facts, logic, and open communication. And in a democracy, the people are the sovereign. So the people need to be informed. That means fully informed; all the ideological marketplace available to all the electorate. Warts and all.

I suspect the 66 ABC affiliates are actually voicing dissent on the recent FCC escalation for decency violations. I think they are saying, "Hey, people of our media market, if you sit back and complacently allow extremist thought police to dictate the rules for broadcast communication, you may lose something very important to America, and to a particular valiant group of Americans. You may lose everything the men of Omaha Beach fought and died for. And you may lose it to folks whose ideology is so very much akin to that which they fought against. Just remember that it is your fight. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." At least I hope so.

As for the MNF thing, well, if that offends you, I have one piece of advice; Change The Damn Channel. Or turn off the *@#&^% TV.

Just To Keep Things Fresh

I haven't posted anything in awhile.

I just haven't had anything to add for about a week.

There are some ruminations floating around in the ol' noggin, but nothing concrete, or even hardening at this time.

I'm sure there will be something soon.

Youth Voted.

There are a lot of reports out there dismissing the youth vote, and stating flatly that youth didn't show up. They can't be furtheer from the truth. Lisa Chamberlain reports in Salon that the facts and numbers tell a different story.

Truth is, we long-time progressives (along with the blissfully ignorant American moderate block) let these young people down. We didn't show up, or we went home because the line was too long, or we let Uncle Dick's stories of the Bogeyman scare us into voting for the village idiot.

John Kerry got 5 million more votes than Al Gore did in 2000. That's a 10% increase in total Democratic vote. Hey, pretty good, right? Think again. The Scourge Of The Texas Rangers got a 9 million vote jump—18%! Now, doing some calculations based on how many more 18-29 year-olds voted, and that they shifted from 50-50 in 2000 to almost 60% Kerry in 2004, and we find that the youngest demographic block (18-24) boosted the Democratic vote by about 1.6 million votes cast, roughly a third of the Democratic vote increase. 18-29 Democratic votes increased by a total of over 3 million from 2000. Certainly they did their part.

That still leaves two million new Democratic votes from the 30+ crowd, over what Gore got, right? Sure, sure, but note that that is an increase of under 5%. Overall U. S. population growth can account for that.

So one of two things happened: either the Republicans turned out tons more folks than they did in 2000, or they got a bunch of Gore voters to go Bush in '04 (the third case, rampant voter fraud, has no incontrovertible evidence at this time).

Either way, shame on us.

Straight For The Heart

Paul Freedman at Slate makes a good case that Terrorism was the real deciding issue in the election. It just might be so. But whether it's "moral values" or terrorism, one thing is certain: the better man for the job based on either criteria lost.

Don't get me wrong. Josef Göeb--er, Karl Rove did a great job rallying the people behind Orwellian slogans and cryptic buzzwords. After all, they repeatedly assert their superior ability to read the people, over in that far-right crowd. Perhaps they actually do a better job knowing the people, perhaps just simplifying their arguements. I think they just learned a long time ago a fundamental truth that liberals and progressives have always known, never forgotten, and never missed an opportunity to lord over the illiterate masses who don't understand: they cannot win an ideological battle for the minds of the people. The progressive arguement is just too compelling. From a neck-up standpoint, belief in the cause of the left is inevitable.

But the demagogues of the right did something back then, that progressives must do now: suck it up and move on, prefereably with a new and better strategy for winning the political arena. They did it by changing strategy; they stopped trying to win people's minds, and started trying to win people's hearts (more on how they won America's heart later). And it has worked beyond any measure that could be anticipated. They are in control of Congress, the Presidency, and soon the Supreme Court. And now it's time for these folks to put their money where their collective mouth is. In other words, to step in it big-time.

See, the issue is not whether these guys are truly more morally centered, or tougher on terrorism, but that they told the people so, and in such a way as to make a majority of them believe it. But because they were successful in selling the brand, now they face the inevitable backlash when the product doesn't live up to the hype (Think XFL). Here is the conversation:

"Hey, I thought you guys were tough on terror! So how come there's more terrorists now than there were before 9/11?"

"I thought you cared about the small business owner! How come it's less affordable for me to run my shop now than it was under Clinton?"

"You said you wanted to give me tax relief, but my tax relief is less taxable wages! What gives?"

"You said you value human life! So why can't Gramma get affordable medicine? And how come the cure for Uncle Pete's palsy comes from Switzerland?"

We'll see how the second season goes.

Meanwhile, the left has been struck by proverbial lightning. See, now we know how to win the body politic. We know the people need to know our hearts. They need to know that the Democratic leadership "feels their pain." They need to know that there is real concern there, that their best interests are shared by the Democrats in office. I know already that it's there, that's why I voted Democrat, but there is still a hard sell for the American people. But there are two distinct advantages for the Democrats.

First, there isn't a whole lot of selling to do. Between 45% and 50% of Americans in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa and New Mexico are already sold. Plus the 47% in Florida and 49% in Ohio that see the light. That's 103 electoral votes essentially up for grabs. And Arizona and North Carolina aren't far behind. So all it takes is 10% of the old brand buyers switching their moral detergent, to get that critical majority market share. And a sweeping call for a new direction in a bold, forthright America that will clean up it's mess and walk the talk on "moral values."

Which brings up the second big advantage. Our product is a far superior stain remover.

Get scrubbin'.

Old Sayings

An old saying is credited to the Chinese, that translated as well as is possible states, "May you live in interesting times." Certainly we do.

Knowing that Yasser Arafat has not died, it may be possible that when he eventually does pass on, there may be another, new old saying: "May you die like Arafat." Meaning, may there be levity, comedy, and a general sense of lightness upon your demise. I certainly would like that.

Given as seriously as people take themselves, however, I suspect the adage will be more akin to, "May you not die like Arafat."

Too bad.

Thinking About Commitment

Eleven states did something that none of them needed to do, and that none would ever find benefit from doing: they banned gay marriage.

See, the thing is, what is marriage? At least in terms of the law, what is the purpose of marriage? When people get married, what is it they are doing, and what is the impression to be created for all parties involved?

First, most marriages are a declaration before God, however the two parties involved choose to worship God. I will call God "God," because that is the name my faith provides. Others may call God "Allah," "Yahweh," "Ganesh," or "Stinky." Not my business, and not the government's either.

And that's germane to my next point. As far as the function of marriage within the governmental structure of the law, it is seen as a binding legal agreement between two consenting parties, that carries certain legal obligations, and provides certain legal rights, to each party, upon occurrence of certain events, such as divorce, birth, adoption, and death of one party. It serves to form a union of two individuals, into one legal entity, as a part of civil law. Essentially, in the eyes of the law, all marriages are "civil unions."

Now, some marriages do not involve religious ritual, and are legalized through court action, usually by an officer of the court, like a J. P. In essence, this makes these marriages strictly "civil unions," which is really the legal terminology for any marriage.

So if all marriages are really just civil unions in the eyes of the law, then what audience actually sees, accepts, and assists to declare a "marriage?" The simple explanation is that the religious community present at the ceremony does. And most marriages are conducted within the space of a religious organization, or by an official of some religious denomination. So these declarations to the community and before God (or at least his representative) are the substance of marriage.

So why is it that we can't legally ban gay marriage? Well, we can, but the ban is a religious one, not a civil one. Any religion can define marriage as a covenant only allowable between one man and one woman. There. Gay marriage banned.

But any other religion can declare marriage to be a covenant of commitment to two individuals, regardless of gender, to maintain monogamous relations, unified households, or any other obligations that can be put upon marriages. And that more open religion is just as legitimate for doing so as one that chooses a stricter definition of "marriage." That's because of religious freedom in America, declared in the Constitution.

But the Constitution has another clause, written into the fourteenth amendment, that guarantees "equal protection of the laws." It is written in such a way as to broadly define what it is to be a member of a class of people, and also to guarantee that one class of people shall have all the rights guaranteed to any other class of people. And since civil union provides rights of property, power of attorney, inheritance, and many more to heterosexual couples, it is a strong argument provided in the Constitution that these same rights are also protected and provided to members of the class of people called homosexual.

No one else can force their religion on me, and I cannot force my religion upon them. I cannot deny another the opportunity to practice religion according to their beliefs, nor can they deny me. But the government is not in the beliefs business, so what is provided under law to some, must be available by law to all.

So Constitutionally, the United States is actually already bound to uphold the right of any religious denomination to disallow gay marriage; but is equally bound to protect the rights of any class of people, to form civil unions for the benefits afforded by such partnerships, including gay couples.

And in each case, that is conveniently the way most people like it.

To The "Moral Values" Crowd

OK. I get it. We get it.

I always thought it was kitschy and quaint, this idea of moral values being important. I thought, we thought, that it was this mildly annoying block of red voters that were unwilling to change, unwilling to examine the issues, unwilling to make an informed decision. Yes, they were votes to be overcome, but the numbers were easily surmountable.

I, we, all get it now. Those of us who consider ourselves reasoned, intelligent, educated people, liberals because liberal is where education and knowledge unavoidably leads us, we see the light. When we abandoned “liberal” for the now-less-pejorative “progressive,” we didn’t get it. But we do now, and since I do get it, I am once again proud to call myself a “liberal.” Even though I'm actually likely not, or maybe just a little. You think that’s a bad thing? In America, that’s your right.

We understand now the words Mark McKinnon said to Ron Suskind:

''You think [President Bush] is an idiot, don't you? ...you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by the
folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!''

We dismissed McKinnon when we read that, but we don’t now. We see that you are legion.

You are out there, and 58 million of you voted Tuesday, chose to make “moral values” the central issue of the election, not the bungling of Iraq, the deceit and secrecy of this administration, not the economy, or health care, or loyalty oaths, or energy policy. You felt that moral values were the central issue to this campaign. Fine. Nothing wrong with that.

But let me tell you now, it doesn’t matter to me if you are 58 million, or 100 million, or 299 million. I don’t care. If I was the last human being on the planet holding out for liberal values, I still don’t care. Stone me, marginalize me, dismiss me, eradicate me. Your moral values would probably command it. But whatever you do, I will never accept your worldview. Mainly because of one thing it doesn’t have: real moral values.

So you want to make moral values the issue of 2004? How about the value of duty? One thing is certain, no matter how John Kerry got injured, no matter where he was Christmas Eve, no matter how he got injured to earn three Purple Hearts: he got the injuries in Vietnam. He was in Vietnam. During the Vietnam War. He served in combat. And if he did bump anyone else in line for Vietnam, I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. When America asked for sacrifice, he was willing to take that risk.

And what of the value of conscience? When he had heard horror stories of the war in Vietnam, he felt the need to speak out against what was then and still is considered today to be an unjust war. He would not stand idly by while men in power abused that power to terrible results. He showed conscience. And he made it clear that though he won’t hesitate to use American military force to secure freedom and safety for Americans, he wouldn’t do it if he genuinely feels more diplomatic solutions are available. Last resort, not carelessly, on “bad intelligence” (mad belligerence is more like it).

How about the moral value of leadership? The kind that stands before a democracy openly and honestly makes policy, earnestly creates alliances, tells the people the truth? Not the misleading, obfuscational nonsense that seeks to divide and demoralize the electorate, to paralyze the sovereign voter with fear, to whitewash the real issues? One candidate had that leadership. He showed it in 1971. In 1984. In 1991. In 2002. In 2004. And especially, yesterday morning.

Honesty, openness, integrity. Diversity, acceptance, tolerance. Those are moral values. Peacemaking. Charity. Love.

Enfranchisement.

You see, those are my moral values. To me, and to all the other people in America who are now ready to proudly take back “liberal” for themselves, those are the real moral values. Real moral values to us, they don’t equal where someone puts his genitals, or who he allows to do the putting. Real moral values are a hell of a lot more than that. Real moral values include caring for your fellow man, no matter his race or creed. Respecting people’s privacy in their own homes, when consenting adults are involved. Providing a helping hand to those less fortunate. Basically, believing in what Jesus taught, much more than the sweet fairy tale literally shackled to your mentality, or the divisive, bigoted fear-based authoritarian you cling to like religious heroin. That’s the junk your leadership has been shoveling on you for years. And somehow it worked. Apparently, we can get fooled again.

You think we don’t get you. Tuesday, you were right. Today, different story. Times change, circumstances change, people change. You and your beloved leader would be wise to understand that. Because, you see, while we finally get you, see you, comprehend you, understand you, you still just don’t get us. The difference is that you don’t want to. You are much happier just to go on not liking us, believing in your moral superiority, just like Mark McKinnon says. But he’s only half right. See, we are legion too. And we are getting stronger. Every day the scales fall from the eyes of those who would despise us or look indifferently on us or simply tolerate us, and they become us. They see the difference more and more each day between talking about a vague undefined idea of moral values, and standing up for the real moral values they can clearly identify. They finally tire of the stonewalling and fear-mongering of your conversation, and they see the world for what it is: a search for truth, not a prepackaged snake-oil sales pitch of truth.

We just didn’t show up.

But that won’t happen again. The stakes were too high Tuesday, but they are even higher now. Because now, our very democracy is at stake. Our freedom of speech, of thought, of dissent, is surely about to be assailed. Our civil liberties are at stake. And of all my set of moral values, civil liberties is the biggest for me. For a lot of us. Lucky for you. Because if it weren’t, you could never have become legion in the first place. If I and my liberal allies were the closed-minded, self-interested, dissent-crushing kettle that your pot calls us, it would have been done already. But we afford you your civil rights. Not because we agree with you, not because your cause has merit, not because you are somehow superior to us. You’re not. But we give you the microphone because it is your right. But I will tell you now, we are no longer going to allow you to forget that it is our right just as much as yours.

You got us, you got us good. We overestimated ourselves, and we underestimated you. So enjoy your victory. While you whoop it up, we’re back at work, building our legion, growing every day. And if your leadership doesn’t see that, they will be relegated to the margins of history. Because there’s a rematch coming, we won’t underestimate you again, and we’ve already got the date circled on the calendar.

Your leaders wanted a culture war, well, they got it. Maybe you want one too. Maybe you think your moral values give you moral authority to define freedom, liberty, and justice in America. Maybe you think we still just don’t get it, and that we still don’t get you. Maybe you still believe that you’ve got our number, that we’ll roll over again. In that case, I have just three words for you.

Bring It On.

Thank You

I apologize for the delay. I have had some loose ends to tie up, but that looks to be settled. I sincerely want to thank all of you who put forth so much time and effort in the campaign for our progressive candidates, from the Senators from Massachusetts and North Carolina to the local and county candidates. No we didn't get the grand prize, or the next two, but we got some wins for our candidates, and that is good.

Please do not lose faith. Just because it didn't arrive on Tuesday, is no reason to give up hope. Because Hope is still on the way.