Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 930
December 7, 2015
Wreck the halls: Another year of Grinchy conservatives using the “war on Christmas” to suck joy out of the holiday season
It's the holiday season! Time for making merry, buying gifts, eating and drinking too much, and trying to squeeze out one last hurrah before the bleak winter weather beats you into submission. Unless, of course, you're a right- wing nut, in which case 'tis the season for doubling down on whining that your identity and cultural traditions are the only legitimate ones and that any deviation from the white-straight-Christian-conservative norm is somehow an attack on you. Leave it to right-wing America to take the season of joy and turn it to the season of resentment and avid policing of anyone deemed to be in violation of the right wing Christmas kulturkampf. There is a "war on Christmas" going on, people, and there is no room for merriment in this oh-so-serious war over empty right-wing pieties. This year, the joyless frog-march to be "merry" in the narrow, conscribed ways dictated to us by conservatives is well-exemplified by a conflict going on in a small Ohio community called the Sycamore Township, which is outside of Cincinnati. There, a man named Jasen Dixon set up a fun spin on the traditional Nativity scene in front of his home, populating it with zombies. This was no half-baked effort, but a true work of goofy lawn art, as you can see from this screenshot of zombie baby Jesus from the local Fox affiliate.
No actual babies, supernatural or otherwise, were harmed in the making of this zombie nativity scene. The whole point of this is clearly to have fun, which is what the holidays should be about. But while irreverence is an important part of every holiday celebration (what, jingle bells without the Batman smells?!) we now live in the era of the imaginary "war on Christmas," where hyped-up conservatives are forever at the ready to lose their minds over any behavior they deem insufficiently pious towards their Norman Rockwell-style image of what Christmas is supposed to be. Subsequently, Dixon is getting harassed by the city government, which is claiming that his decoration violates zoning regulations. Dixon, on the other hand, says that his display falls well within the size requirements laid out by the city, and he believes they are picking on him because his decorations hurt the fee-fees of Christians who take themselves way too seriously. Evidence of this is supplied by fliers going around claiming that "God" (by which many conservative Christians always mean "I") "frowns upon this manger scene." "God never expresses even the slightest inkling of humor," the flier continues, "towards demons or, in this case, zombies." One gets the sense that "God," aka the person who made this flier, generally feels that humor is an inappropriate feeling, and that goes double for the holiday season, when the desire to be a bunch of wet blankets asserting the superiority of their culture over the rest of us is kicked into high gear. The same joyless boundary-policing is threatening to ruin the holiday season in Tennessee, as well. The Tennessean reports that two Republican state lawmakers, in full pandering-to-the-resentful mode, are calling for the resignation of the University of Tennessee chancellor Jimmy Cheek. His supposed sin is allowing the university to call for making the holiday celebrations welcoming to all people. At issue is a memo posted by the school's office of diversity and inclusion where the school reminded staff "we are fully committed to a diverse, welcoming, and inclusive environment." (Horrors!) To make sure that management is not "perceived as endorsing, religion generally or a specific religion," they recommended broad holiday parties, instead of "a Christmas party in disguise." Cheek didn't write the memo, but nonetheless is getting raked over the coals for this apparently horrific idea that the holidays should be about fun for everyone instead of grim ritual about the supposed superiority of conservative Christians. Clearly what conservatives would like is for the university to hang a big sign over its offices that says "Conservative Christians rule, everyone else drools!" and anything short of that is waging ye old war on Christmas. Peace on earth? Goodwill towards men? Screw all that! The important thing is making the atheists, Jews, Muslims and even liberal Christians that you are supposed to be working with feel left out of the holiday celebrations. Perhaps it's time for liberal Americans who celebrate Christmas to imitate our English brethren and start saying, "Happy Christmas!" instead of the archaic "Merry Christmas!" Nowadays, you can't be certain that someone who says the latter is actually wishing merriness upon you. On the contrary, the phrase has become weaponized, the conservative culture warrior's version of the New York salute. Take, for instance, the sheriff in Harris County, Georgia, who put up a sign at the county border reading, "WARNING: Harris County is politically incorrect. We say: Merry Christmas, God Bless America and In God We Trust. We salute our troops and our flag. If this offends you…LEAVE!" At first blush, this move seems paranoid in the extreme, as there is no movement of liberals running around taking umbrage if you salute the flag or wish someone a Merry Christmas. When it comes to taking offense, as these stories show, it's conservatives who are the real champs, losing their minds at the whiff of a silly joke or an attempt to have a holiday party for everyone who works at a place. But of course, this sign isn't really about these mythical liberals taking offense at the truly well-meaning. It's about taking previously well-meant phrases, from "God bless" to "Merry Christmas," and turning them into euphemisms for "fuck you." If you do something like that, you can't be surprised if someone takes the meaning that you clearly were conveying, and gets miffed at you. Sadly, this ugliness has leaked even into the more liberal lands of Brooklyn. I was walking through the park a few days ago and I passed a man yelling "Merry Christmas" at people. At first, assuming he was just overcome with the holiday spirit, I turned to smile at him. Then I saw the expression on his face: Angry, sullen and clearly screaming this phrase at people in an effort to intimidate them. He wasn't wishing us a merry Christmas. He was browbeating us. Somehow, we were failing to do Christmas the way he wanted us to do Christmas. But apparently that is what fighting the "war on Christmas" is all about: Making sure to suck all the joy and fun out of what is supposed to be a cheerful holiday season. 
It's the holiday season! Time for making merry, buying gifts, eating and drinking too much, and trying to squeeze out one last hurrah before the bleak winter weather beats you into submission. Unless, of course, you're a right- wing nut, in which case 'tis the season for doubling down on whining that your identity and cultural traditions are the only legitimate ones and that any deviation from the white-straight-Christian-conservative norm is somehow an attack on you. Leave it to right-wing America to take the season of joy and turn it to the season of resentment and avid policing of anyone deemed to be in violation of the right wing Christmas kulturkampf. There is a "war on Christmas" going on, people, and there is no room for merriment in this oh-so-serious war over empty right-wing pieties. This year, the joyless frog-march to be "merry" in the narrow, conscribed ways dictated to us by conservatives is well-exemplified by a conflict going on in a small Ohio community called the Sycamore Township, which is outside of Cincinnati. There, a man named Jasen Dixon set up a fun spin on the traditional Nativity scene in front of his home, populating it with zombies. This was no half-baked effort, but a true work of goofy lawn art, as you can see from this screenshot of zombie baby Jesus from the local Fox affiliate.
No actual babies, supernatural or otherwise, were harmed in the making of this zombie nativity scene. The whole point of this is clearly to have fun, which is what the holidays should be about. But while irreverence is an important part of every holiday celebration (what, jingle bells without the Batman smells?!) we now live in the era of the imaginary "war on Christmas," where hyped-up conservatives are forever at the ready to lose their minds over any behavior they deem insufficiently pious towards their Norman Rockwell-style image of what Christmas is supposed to be. Subsequently, Dixon is getting harassed by the city government, which is claiming that his decoration violates zoning regulations. Dixon, on the other hand, says that his display falls well within the size requirements laid out by the city, and he believes they are picking on him because his decorations hurt the fee-fees of Christians who take themselves way too seriously. Evidence of this is supplied by fliers going around claiming that "God" (by which many conservative Christians always mean "I") "frowns upon this manger scene." "God never expresses even the slightest inkling of humor," the flier continues, "towards demons or, in this case, zombies." One gets the sense that "God," aka the person who made this flier, generally feels that humor is an inappropriate feeling, and that goes double for the holiday season, when the desire to be a bunch of wet blankets asserting the superiority of their culture over the rest of us is kicked into high gear. The same joyless boundary-policing is threatening to ruin the holiday season in Tennessee, as well. The Tennessean reports that two Republican state lawmakers, in full pandering-to-the-resentful mode, are calling for the resignation of the University of Tennessee chancellor Jimmy Cheek. His supposed sin is allowing the university to call for making the holiday celebrations welcoming to all people. At issue is a memo posted by the school's office of diversity and inclusion where the school reminded staff "we are fully committed to a diverse, welcoming, and inclusive environment." (Horrors!) To make sure that management is not "perceived as endorsing, religion generally or a specific religion," they recommended broad holiday parties, instead of "a Christmas party in disguise." Cheek didn't write the memo, but nonetheless is getting raked over the coals for this apparently horrific idea that the holidays should be about fun for everyone instead of grim ritual about the supposed superiority of conservative Christians. Clearly what conservatives would like is for the university to hang a big sign over its offices that says "Conservative Christians rule, everyone else drools!" and anything short of that is waging ye old war on Christmas. Peace on earth? Goodwill towards men? Screw all that! The important thing is making the atheists, Jews, Muslims and even liberal Christians that you are supposed to be working with feel left out of the holiday celebrations. Perhaps it's time for liberal Americans who celebrate Christmas to imitate our English brethren and start saying, "Happy Christmas!" instead of the archaic "Merry Christmas!" Nowadays, you can't be certain that someone who says the latter is actually wishing merriness upon you. On the contrary, the phrase has become weaponized, the conservative culture warrior's version of the New York salute. Take, for instance, the sheriff in Harris County, Georgia, who put up a sign at the county border reading, "WARNING: Harris County is politically incorrect. We say: Merry Christmas, God Bless America and In God We Trust. We salute our troops and our flag. If this offends you…LEAVE!" At first blush, this move seems paranoid in the extreme, as there is no movement of liberals running around taking umbrage if you salute the flag or wish someone a Merry Christmas. When it comes to taking offense, as these stories show, it's conservatives who are the real champs, losing their minds at the whiff of a silly joke or an attempt to have a holiday party for everyone who works at a place. But of course, this sign isn't really about these mythical liberals taking offense at the truly well-meaning. It's about taking previously well-meant phrases, from "God bless" to "Merry Christmas," and turning them into euphemisms for "fuck you." If you do something like that, you can't be surprised if someone takes the meaning that you clearly were conveying, and gets miffed at you. Sadly, this ugliness has leaked even into the more liberal lands of Brooklyn. I was walking through the park a few days ago and I passed a man yelling "Merry Christmas" at people. At first, assuming he was just overcome with the holiday spirit, I turned to smile at him. Then I saw the expression on his face: Angry, sullen and clearly screaming this phrase at people in an effort to intimidate them. He wasn't wishing us a merry Christmas. He was browbeating us. Somehow, we were failing to do Christmas the way he wanted us to do Christmas. But apparently that is what fighting the "war on Christmas" is all about: Making sure to suck all the joy and fun out of what is supposed to be a cheerful holiday season. It's the holiday season! Time for making merry, buying gifts, eating and drinking too much, and trying to squeeze out one last hurrah before the bleak winter weather beats you into submission. Unless, of course, you're a right- wing nut, in which case 'tis the season for doubling down on whining that your identity and cultural traditions are the only legitimate ones and that any deviation from the white-straight-Christian-conservative norm is somehow an attack on you. Leave it to right-wing America to take the season of joy and turn it to the season of resentment and avid policing of anyone deemed to be in violation of the right wing Christmas kulturkampf. There is a "war on Christmas" going on, people, and there is no room for merriment in this oh-so-serious war over empty right-wing pieties. This year, the joyless frog-march to be "merry" in the narrow, conscribed ways dictated to us by conservatives is well-exemplified by a conflict going on in a small Ohio community called the Sycamore Township, which is outside of Cincinnati. There, a man named Jasen Dixon set up a fun spin on the traditional Nativity scene in front of his home, populating it with zombies. This was no half-baked effort, but a true work of goofy lawn art, as you can see from this screenshot of zombie baby Jesus from the local Fox affiliate.
No actual babies, supernatural or otherwise, were harmed in the making of this zombie nativity scene. The whole point of this is clearly to have fun, which is what the holidays should be about. But while irreverence is an important part of every holiday celebration (what, jingle bells without the Batman smells?!) we now live in the era of the imaginary "war on Christmas," where hyped-up conservatives are forever at the ready to lose their minds over any behavior they deem insufficiently pious towards their Norman Rockwell-style image of what Christmas is supposed to be. Subsequently, Dixon is getting harassed by the city government, which is claiming that his decoration violates zoning regulations. Dixon, on the other hand, says that his display falls well within the size requirements laid out by the city, and he believes they are picking on him because his decorations hurt the fee-fees of Christians who take themselves way too seriously. Evidence of this is supplied by fliers going around claiming that "God" (by which many conservative Christians always mean "I") "frowns upon this manger scene." "God never expresses even the slightest inkling of humor," the flier continues, "towards demons or, in this case, zombies." One gets the sense that "God," aka the person who made this flier, generally feels that humor is an inappropriate feeling, and that goes double for the holiday season, when the desire to be a bunch of wet blankets asserting the superiority of their culture over the rest of us is kicked into high gear. The same joyless boundary-policing is threatening to ruin the holiday season in Tennessee, as well. The Tennessean reports that two Republican state lawmakers, in full pandering-to-the-resentful mode, are calling for the resignation of the University of Tennessee chancellor Jimmy Cheek. His supposed sin is allowing the university to call for making the holiday celebrations welcoming to all people. At issue is a memo posted by the school's office of diversity and inclusion where the school reminded staff "we are fully committed to a diverse, welcoming, and inclusive environment." (Horrors!) To make sure that management is not "perceived as endorsing, religion generally or a specific religion," they recommended broad holiday parties, instead of "a Christmas party in disguise." Cheek didn't write the memo, but nonetheless is getting raked over the coals for this apparently horrific idea that the holidays should be about fun for everyone instead of grim ritual about the supposed superiority of conservative Christians. Clearly what conservatives would like is for the university to hang a big sign over its offices that says "Conservative Christians rule, everyone else drools!" and anything short of that is waging ye old war on Christmas. Peace on earth? Goodwill towards men? Screw all that! The important thing is making the atheists, Jews, Muslims and even liberal Christians that you are supposed to be working with feel left out of the holiday celebrations. Perhaps it's time for liberal Americans who celebrate Christmas to imitate our English brethren and start saying, "Happy Christmas!" instead of the archaic "Merry Christmas!" Nowadays, you can't be certain that someone who says the latter is actually wishing merriness upon you. On the contrary, the phrase has become weaponized, the conservative culture warrior's version of the New York salute. Take, for instance, the sheriff in Harris County, Georgia, who put up a sign at the county border reading, "WARNING: Harris County is politically incorrect. We say: Merry Christmas, God Bless America and In God We Trust. We salute our troops and our flag. If this offends you…LEAVE!" At first blush, this move seems paranoid in the extreme, as there is no movement of liberals running around taking umbrage if you salute the flag or wish someone a Merry Christmas. When it comes to taking offense, as these stories show, it's conservatives who are the real champs, losing their minds at the whiff of a silly joke or an attempt to have a holiday party for everyone who works at a place. But of course, this sign isn't really about these mythical liberals taking offense at the truly well-meaning. It's about taking previously well-meant phrases, from "God bless" to "Merry Christmas," and turning them into euphemisms for "fuck you." If you do something like that, you can't be surprised if someone takes the meaning that you clearly were conveying, and gets miffed at you. Sadly, this ugliness has leaked even into the more liberal lands of Brooklyn. I was walking through the park a few days ago and I passed a man yelling "Merry Christmas" at people. At first, assuming he was just overcome with the holiday spirit, I turned to smile at him. Then I saw the expression on his face: Angry, sullen and clearly screaming this phrase at people in an effort to intimidate them. He wasn't wishing us a merry Christmas. He was browbeating us. Somehow, we were failing to do Christmas the way he wanted us to do Christmas. But apparently that is what fighting the "war on Christmas" is all about: Making sure to suck all the joy and fun out of what is supposed to be a cheerful holiday season.
No actual babies, supernatural or otherwise, were harmed in the making of this zombie nativity scene. The whole point of this is clearly to have fun, which is what the holidays should be about. But while irreverence is an important part of every holiday celebration (what, jingle bells without the Batman smells?!) we now live in the era of the imaginary "war on Christmas," where hyped-up conservatives are forever at the ready to lose their minds over any behavior they deem insufficiently pious towards their Norman Rockwell-style image of what Christmas is supposed to be. Subsequently, Dixon is getting harassed by the city government, which is claiming that his decoration violates zoning regulations. Dixon, on the other hand, says that his display falls well within the size requirements laid out by the city, and he believes they are picking on him because his decorations hurt the fee-fees of Christians who take themselves way too seriously. Evidence of this is supplied by fliers going around claiming that "God" (by which many conservative Christians always mean "I") "frowns upon this manger scene." "God never expresses even the slightest inkling of humor," the flier continues, "towards demons or, in this case, zombies." One gets the sense that "God," aka the person who made this flier, generally feels that humor is an inappropriate feeling, and that goes double for the holiday season, when the desire to be a bunch of wet blankets asserting the superiority of their culture over the rest of us is kicked into high gear. The same joyless boundary-policing is threatening to ruin the holiday season in Tennessee, as well. The Tennessean reports that two Republican state lawmakers, in full pandering-to-the-resentful mode, are calling for the resignation of the University of Tennessee chancellor Jimmy Cheek. His supposed sin is allowing the university to call for making the holiday celebrations welcoming to all people. At issue is a memo posted by the school's office of diversity and inclusion where the school reminded staff "we are fully committed to a diverse, welcoming, and inclusive environment." (Horrors!) To make sure that management is not "perceived as endorsing, religion generally or a specific religion," they recommended broad holiday parties, instead of "a Christmas party in disguise." Cheek didn't write the memo, but nonetheless is getting raked over the coals for this apparently horrific idea that the holidays should be about fun for everyone instead of grim ritual about the supposed superiority of conservative Christians. Clearly what conservatives would like is for the university to hang a big sign over its offices that says "Conservative Christians rule, everyone else drools!" and anything short of that is waging ye old war on Christmas. Peace on earth? Goodwill towards men? Screw all that! The important thing is making the atheists, Jews, Muslims and even liberal Christians that you are supposed to be working with feel left out of the holiday celebrations. Perhaps it's time for liberal Americans who celebrate Christmas to imitate our English brethren and start saying, "Happy Christmas!" instead of the archaic "Merry Christmas!" Nowadays, you can't be certain that someone who says the latter is actually wishing merriness upon you. On the contrary, the phrase has become weaponized, the conservative culture warrior's version of the New York salute. Take, for instance, the sheriff in Harris County, Georgia, who put up a sign at the county border reading, "WARNING: Harris County is politically incorrect. We say: Merry Christmas, God Bless America and In God We Trust. We salute our troops and our flag. If this offends you…LEAVE!" At first blush, this move seems paranoid in the extreme, as there is no movement of liberals running around taking umbrage if you salute the flag or wish someone a Merry Christmas. When it comes to taking offense, as these stories show, it's conservatives who are the real champs, losing their minds at the whiff of a silly joke or an attempt to have a holiday party for everyone who works at a place. But of course, this sign isn't really about these mythical liberals taking offense at the truly well-meaning. It's about taking previously well-meant phrases, from "God bless" to "Merry Christmas," and turning them into euphemisms for "fuck you." If you do something like that, you can't be surprised if someone takes the meaning that you clearly were conveying, and gets miffed at you. Sadly, this ugliness has leaked even into the more liberal lands of Brooklyn. I was walking through the park a few days ago and I passed a man yelling "Merry Christmas" at people. At first, assuming he was just overcome with the holiday spirit, I turned to smile at him. Then I saw the expression on his face: Angry, sullen and clearly screaming this phrase at people in an effort to intimidate them. He wasn't wishing us a merry Christmas. He was browbeating us. Somehow, we were failing to do Christmas the way he wanted us to do Christmas. But apparently that is what fighting the "war on Christmas" is all about: Making sure to suck all the joy and fun out of what is supposed to be a cheerful holiday season. It's the holiday season! Time for making merry, buying gifts, eating and drinking too much, and trying to squeeze out one last hurrah before the bleak winter weather beats you into submission. Unless, of course, you're a right- wing nut, in which case 'tis the season for doubling down on whining that your identity and cultural traditions are the only legitimate ones and that any deviation from the white-straight-Christian-conservative norm is somehow an attack on you. Leave it to right-wing America to take the season of joy and turn it to the season of resentment and avid policing of anyone deemed to be in violation of the right wing Christmas kulturkampf. There is a "war on Christmas" going on, people, and there is no room for merriment in this oh-so-serious war over empty right-wing pieties. This year, the joyless frog-march to be "merry" in the narrow, conscribed ways dictated to us by conservatives is well-exemplified by a conflict going on in a small Ohio community called the Sycamore Township, which is outside of Cincinnati. There, a man named Jasen Dixon set up a fun spin on the traditional Nativity scene in front of his home, populating it with zombies. This was no half-baked effort, but a true work of goofy lawn art, as you can see from this screenshot of zombie baby Jesus from the local Fox affiliate.
No actual babies, supernatural or otherwise, were harmed in the making of this zombie nativity scene. The whole point of this is clearly to have fun, which is what the holidays should be about. But while irreverence is an important part of every holiday celebration (what, jingle bells without the Batman smells?!) we now live in the era of the imaginary "war on Christmas," where hyped-up conservatives are forever at the ready to lose their minds over any behavior they deem insufficiently pious towards their Norman Rockwell-style image of what Christmas is supposed to be. Subsequently, Dixon is getting harassed by the city government, which is claiming that his decoration violates zoning regulations. Dixon, on the other hand, says that his display falls well within the size requirements laid out by the city, and he believes they are picking on him because his decorations hurt the fee-fees of Christians who take themselves way too seriously. Evidence of this is supplied by fliers going around claiming that "God" (by which many conservative Christians always mean "I") "frowns upon this manger scene." "God never expresses even the slightest inkling of humor," the flier continues, "towards demons or, in this case, zombies." One gets the sense that "God," aka the person who made this flier, generally feels that humor is an inappropriate feeling, and that goes double for the holiday season, when the desire to be a bunch of wet blankets asserting the superiority of their culture over the rest of us is kicked into high gear. The same joyless boundary-policing is threatening to ruin the holiday season in Tennessee, as well. The Tennessean reports that two Republican state lawmakers, in full pandering-to-the-resentful mode, are calling for the resignation of the University of Tennessee chancellor Jimmy Cheek. His supposed sin is allowing the university to call for making the holiday celebrations welcoming to all people. At issue is a memo posted by the school's office of diversity and inclusion where the school reminded staff "we are fully committed to a diverse, welcoming, and inclusive environment." (Horrors!) To make sure that management is not "perceived as endorsing, religion generally or a specific religion," they recommended broad holiday parties, instead of "a Christmas party in disguise." Cheek didn't write the memo, but nonetheless is getting raked over the coals for this apparently horrific idea that the holidays should be about fun for everyone instead of grim ritual about the supposed superiority of conservative Christians. Clearly what conservatives would like is for the university to hang a big sign over its offices that says "Conservative Christians rule, everyone else drools!" and anything short of that is waging ye old war on Christmas. Peace on earth? Goodwill towards men? Screw all that! The important thing is making the atheists, Jews, Muslims and even liberal Christians that you are supposed to be working with feel left out of the holiday celebrations. Perhaps it's time for liberal Americans who celebrate Christmas to imitate our English brethren and start saying, "Happy Christmas!" instead of the archaic "Merry Christmas!" Nowadays, you can't be certain that someone who says the latter is actually wishing merriness upon you. On the contrary, the phrase has become weaponized, the conservative culture warrior's version of the New York salute. Take, for instance, the sheriff in Harris County, Georgia, who put up a sign at the county border reading, "WARNING: Harris County is politically incorrect. We say: Merry Christmas, God Bless America and In God We Trust. We salute our troops and our flag. If this offends you…LEAVE!" At first blush, this move seems paranoid in the extreme, as there is no movement of liberals running around taking umbrage if you salute the flag or wish someone a Merry Christmas. When it comes to taking offense, as these stories show, it's conservatives who are the real champs, losing their minds at the whiff of a silly joke or an attempt to have a holiday party for everyone who works at a place. But of course, this sign isn't really about these mythical liberals taking offense at the truly well-meaning. It's about taking previously well-meant phrases, from "God bless" to "Merry Christmas," and turning them into euphemisms for "fuck you." If you do something like that, you can't be surprised if someone takes the meaning that you clearly were conveying, and gets miffed at you. Sadly, this ugliness has leaked even into the more liberal lands of Brooklyn. I was walking through the park a few days ago and I passed a man yelling "Merry Christmas" at people. At first, assuming he was just overcome with the holiday spirit, I turned to smile at him. Then I saw the expression on his face: Angry, sullen and clearly screaming this phrase at people in an effort to intimidate them. He wasn't wishing us a merry Christmas. He was browbeating us. Somehow, we were failing to do Christmas the way he wanted us to do Christmas. But apparently that is what fighting the "war on Christmas" is all about: Making sure to suck all the joy and fun out of what is supposed to be a cheerful holiday season. It's the holiday season! Time for making merry, buying gifts, eating and drinking too much, and trying to squeeze out one last hurrah before the bleak winter weather beats you into submission. Unless, of course, you're a right- wing nut, in which case 'tis the season for doubling down on whining that your identity and cultural traditions are the only legitimate ones and that any deviation from the white-straight-Christian-conservative norm is somehow an attack on you. Leave it to right-wing America to take the season of joy and turn it to the season of resentment and avid policing of anyone deemed to be in violation of the right wing Christmas kulturkampf. There is a "war on Christmas" going on, people, and there is no room for merriment in this oh-so-serious war over empty right-wing pieties. This year, the joyless frog-march to be "merry" in the narrow, conscribed ways dictated to us by conservatives is well-exemplified by a conflict going on in a small Ohio community called the Sycamore Township, which is outside of Cincinnati. There, a man named Jasen Dixon set up a fun spin on the traditional Nativity scene in front of his home, populating it with zombies. This was no half-baked effort, but a true work of goofy lawn art, as you can see from this screenshot of zombie baby Jesus from the local Fox affiliate.
No actual babies, supernatural or otherwise, were harmed in the making of this zombie nativity scene. The whole point of this is clearly to have fun, which is what the holidays should be about. But while irreverence is an important part of every holiday celebration (what, jingle bells without the Batman smells?!) we now live in the era of the imaginary "war on Christmas," where hyped-up conservatives are forever at the ready to lose their minds over any behavior they deem insufficiently pious towards their Norman Rockwell-style image of what Christmas is supposed to be. Subsequently, Dixon is getting harassed by the city government, which is claiming that his decoration violates zoning regulations. Dixon, on the other hand, says that his display falls well within the size requirements laid out by the city, and he believes they are picking on him because his decorations hurt the fee-fees of Christians who take themselves way too seriously. Evidence of this is supplied by fliers going around claiming that "God" (by which many conservative Christians always mean "I") "frowns upon this manger scene." "God never expresses even the slightest inkling of humor," the flier continues, "towards demons or, in this case, zombies." One gets the sense that "God," aka the person who made this flier, generally feels that humor is an inappropriate feeling, and that goes double for the holiday season, when the desire to be a bunch of wet blankets asserting the superiority of their culture over the rest of us is kicked into high gear. The same joyless boundary-policing is threatening to ruin the holiday season in Tennessee, as well. The Tennessean reports that two Republican state lawmakers, in full pandering-to-the-resentful mode, are calling for the resignation of the University of Tennessee chancellor Jimmy Cheek. His supposed sin is allowing the university to call for making the holiday celebrations welcoming to all people. At issue is a memo posted by the school's office of diversity and inclusion where the school reminded staff "we are fully committed to a diverse, welcoming, and inclusive environment." (Horrors!) To make sure that management is not "perceived as endorsing, religion generally or a specific religion," they recommended broad holiday parties, instead of "a Christmas party in disguise." Cheek didn't write the memo, but nonetheless is getting raked over the coals for this apparently horrific idea that the holidays should be about fun for everyone instead of grim ritual about the supposed superiority of conservative Christians. Clearly what conservatives would like is for the university to hang a big sign over its offices that says "Conservative Christians rule, everyone else drools!" and anything short of that is waging ye old war on Christmas. Peace on earth? Goodwill towards men? Screw all that! The important thing is making the atheists, Jews, Muslims and even liberal Christians that you are supposed to be working with feel left out of the holiday celebrations. Perhaps it's time for liberal Americans who celebrate Christmas to imitate our English brethren and start saying, "Happy Christmas!" instead of the archaic "Merry Christmas!" Nowadays, you can't be certain that someone who says the latter is actually wishing merriness upon you. On the contrary, the phrase has become weaponized, the conservative culture warrior's version of the New York salute. Take, for instance, the sheriff in Harris County, Georgia, who put up a sign at the county border reading, "WARNING: Harris County is politically incorrect. We say: Merry Christmas, God Bless America and In God We Trust. We salute our troops and our flag. If this offends you…LEAVE!" At first blush, this move seems paranoid in the extreme, as there is no movement of liberals running around taking umbrage if you salute the flag or wish someone a Merry Christmas. When it comes to taking offense, as these stories show, it's conservatives who are the real champs, losing their minds at the whiff of a silly joke or an attempt to have a holiday party for everyone who works at a place. But of course, this sign isn't really about these mythical liberals taking offense at the truly well-meaning. It's about taking previously well-meant phrases, from "God bless" to "Merry Christmas," and turning them into euphemisms for "fuck you." If you do something like that, you can't be surprised if someone takes the meaning that you clearly were conveying, and gets miffed at you. Sadly, this ugliness has leaked even into the more liberal lands of Brooklyn. I was walking through the park a few days ago and I passed a man yelling "Merry Christmas" at people. At first, assuming he was just overcome with the holiday spirit, I turned to smile at him. Then I saw the expression on his face: Angry, sullen and clearly screaming this phrase at people in an effort to intimidate them. He wasn't wishing us a merry Christmas. He was browbeating us. Somehow, we were failing to do Christmas the way he wanted us to do Christmas. But apparently that is what fighting the "war on Christmas" is all about: Making sure to suck all the joy and fun out of what is supposed to be a cheerful holiday season.
Elizabeth Warren endorses Hillary Clinton’s proposed new Wall Street regulations
On Monday, the New York Times ran an op-ed from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, titled, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street." In her op-ed, Clinton outlined how she would "fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond" Dodd-Frank. Although Clinton does not support the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, she wrote that her "plan goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector." “We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks,” Clinton suggested. As for the big Wall Street banks, Clinton proposed "closing the loopholes that allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits." She also wrote that she would "fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks." She also indicated that she would not hesitate to "ensure that the federal government has -- and is prepared to use -- the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively," adding that "no bank or financial firm should be too big to manage." Republicans, she argued, "are working to attach damaging deregulation riders to the must-pass spending bill," and are "trying to undo constraints on risk at some of the largest and most complex financial institutions." “Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass government funding bill,” Massachusetts senator and populist Democratic superstar Elizabeth Warren wrote on Facebook Monday, sharing Clinton's op-ed to her nearly two million "friends." “Whether it’s attacking the C.F.P.B., undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisers, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we’ve made on financial reform,” Warren wrote of Clinton, “she and I agree”: 
On Monday, the New York Times ran an op-ed from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, titled, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street." In her op-ed, Clinton outlined how she would "fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond" Dodd-Frank. Although Clinton does not support the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, she wrote that her "plan goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector." “We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks,” Clinton suggested. As for the big Wall Street banks, Clinton proposed "closing the loopholes that allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits." She also wrote that she would "fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks." She also indicated that she would not hesitate to "ensure that the federal government has -- and is prepared to use -- the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively," adding that "no bank or financial firm should be too big to manage." Republicans, she argued, "are working to attach damaging deregulation riders to the must-pass spending bill," and are "trying to undo constraints on risk at some of the largest and most complex financial institutions." “Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass government funding bill,” Massachusetts senator and populist Democratic superstar Elizabeth Warren wrote on Facebook Monday, sharing Clinton's op-ed to her nearly two million "friends." “Whether it’s attacking the C.F.P.B., undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisers, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we’ve made on financial reform,” Warren wrote of Clinton, “she and I agree”: On Monday, the New York Times ran an op-ed from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, titled, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street." In her op-ed, Clinton outlined how she would "fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond" Dodd-Frank. Although Clinton does not support the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, she wrote that her "plan goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector." “We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks,” Clinton suggested. As for the big Wall Street banks, Clinton proposed "closing the loopholes that allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits." She also wrote that she would "fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks." She also indicated that she would not hesitate to "ensure that the federal government has -- and is prepared to use -- the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively," adding that "no bank or financial firm should be too big to manage." Republicans, she argued, "are working to attach damaging deregulation riders to the must-pass spending bill," and are "trying to undo constraints on risk at some of the largest and most complex financial institutions." “Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass government funding bill,” Massachusetts senator and populist Democratic superstar Elizabeth Warren wrote on Facebook Monday, sharing Clinton's op-ed to her nearly two million "friends." “Whether it’s attacking the C.F.P.B., undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisers, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we’ve made on financial reform,” Warren wrote of Clinton, “she and I agree”:
Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass... Posted by Elizabeth Warren on Monday, December 7, 2015Warren also shared Clinton's op-ed on Twitter, her first time using the social media medium in nearly a month: https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/st... https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/st... Much was made of Warren's absence from a Washington, D.C. Clinton fundraiser last week, featuring every other female U.S. senator. Warren has, of course, not yet endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary. In September, the Massachusetts democrat told the Boston Globe that she did, in fact, plan on endorsing a candidate before the primary ended, but remained tight-lipped at the time. This weekend, Warren reaffirmed her commitment to endorse, while praising Clinton's rival Bernie Sanders, telling the Boston Herald that “it’s just not time for me to do that yet,” but that “Bernie is doing what Bernie always does — he’s out there talking from the heart, raising the issues that he’s raised for decades now.”
On Monday, the New York Times ran an op-ed from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, titled, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street." In her op-ed, Clinton outlined how she would "fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond" Dodd-Frank. Although Clinton does not support the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, she wrote that her "plan goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector." “We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks,” Clinton suggested. As for the big Wall Street banks, Clinton proposed "closing the loopholes that allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits." She also wrote that she would "fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks." She also indicated that she would not hesitate to "ensure that the federal government has -- and is prepared to use -- the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively," adding that "no bank or financial firm should be too big to manage." Republicans, she argued, "are working to attach damaging deregulation riders to the must-pass spending bill," and are "trying to undo constraints on risk at some of the largest and most complex financial institutions." “Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass government funding bill,” Massachusetts senator and populist Democratic superstar Elizabeth Warren wrote on Facebook Monday, sharing Clinton's op-ed to her nearly two million "friends." “Whether it’s attacking the C.F.P.B., undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisers, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we’ve made on financial reform,” Warren wrote of Clinton, “she and I agree”: Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass... Posted by Elizabeth Warren on Monday, December 7, 2015Warren also shared Clinton's op-ed on Twitter, her first time using the social media medium in nearly a month: https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/st... https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/st... Much was made of Warren's absence from a Washington, D.C. Clinton fundraiser last week, featuring every other female U.S. senator. Warren has, of course, not yet endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary. In September, the Massachusetts democrat told the Boston Globe that she did, in fact, plan on endorsing a candidate before the primary ended, but remained tight-lipped at the time. This weekend, Warren reaffirmed her commitment to endorse, while praising Clinton's rival Bernie Sanders, telling the Boston Herald that “it’s just not time for me to do that yet,” but that “Bernie is doing what Bernie always does — he’s out there talking from the heart, raising the issues that he’s raised for decades now.”
On Monday, the New York Times ran an op-ed from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, titled, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street." In her op-ed, Clinton outlined how she would "fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond" Dodd-Frank. Although Clinton does not support the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, she wrote that her "plan goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector." “We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks,” Clinton suggested. As for the big Wall Street banks, Clinton proposed "closing the loopholes that allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits." She also wrote that she would "fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks." She also indicated that she would not hesitate to "ensure that the federal government has -- and is prepared to use -- the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively," adding that "no bank or financial firm should be too big to manage." Republicans, she argued, "are working to attach damaging deregulation riders to the must-pass spending bill," and are "trying to undo constraints on risk at some of the largest and most complex financial institutions." “Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass government funding bill,” Massachusetts senator and populist Democratic superstar Elizabeth Warren wrote on Facebook Monday, sharing Clinton's op-ed to her nearly two million "friends." “Whether it’s attacking the C.F.P.B., undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisers, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we’ve made on financial reform,” Warren wrote of Clinton, “she and I agree”: Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass... Posted by Elizabeth Warren on Monday, December 7, 2015Warren also shared Clinton's op-ed on Twitter, her first time using the social media medium in nearly a month: https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/st... https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/st... Much was made of Warren's absence from a Washington, D.C. Clinton fundraiser last week, featuring every other female U.S. senator. Warren has, of course, not yet endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary. In September, the Massachusetts democrat told the Boston Globe that she did, in fact, plan on endorsing a candidate before the primary ended, but remained tight-lipped at the time. This weekend, Warren reaffirmed her commitment to endorse, while praising Clinton's rival Bernie Sanders, telling the Boston Herald that “it’s just not time for me to do that yet,” but that “Bernie is doing what Bernie always does — he’s out there talking from the heart, raising the issues that he’s raised for decades now.”
“People are armed to the hilt”: Inside the paranoid right-wing reality—where terrorists are literally everywhere
I was initially disappointed to tune in to "Fox & Friends" host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show the day after the identities of the San Bernardino killers were revealed to find a guest host, Mary Walter. I’d sought out Fox News Radio expressly to hear the professional Islamophobe’s take, but the Islamophobia racket is a busy one, and Kilmeade was away doing an event for his recently published racist tract about America's (fallacious) centuries-long war with Islam. But Walter was a returning guest host, so she has Kilmeade and Fox’s seal of approval. Maybe she’d do. “Let’s go to Christy in Missouri…” Christy has a story for Walter: She gets a call from her sister, who is at (where else?) Cracker Barrel, a place so notoriously white that BuzzFeed’s Heben Nigatu has proffered “a cracker barrel” as a unit of measurement for a number of white people. Behind the Cracker Barrel, Christy’s sister spots a Muslim man who has pulled out a prayer mat, apparently due to his being on the road and needing a place to quickly pray. He tucks himself into what Christy calls the “alley” behind the restaurant, presumably to be out of folks’ way and not draw attention to himself. Christy’s sister is calling her to ask if she should call the police. You know, if you see something, say something. Christy says that she should. The man leaves shortly after the police arrive, and they follow him. But her sister “never found out if they found anything or what have you,” Christy explains, and so: 
I was initially disappointed to tune in to "Fox & Friends" host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show the day after the identities of the San Bernardino killers were revealed to find a guest host, Mary Walter. I’d sought out Fox News Radio expressly to hear the professional Islamophobe’s take, but the Islamophobia racket is a busy one, and Kilmeade was away doing an event for his recently published racist tract about America's (fallacious) centuries-long war with Islam. But Walter was a returning guest host, so she has Kilmeade and Fox’s seal of approval. Maybe she’d do. “Let’s go to Christy in Missouri…” Christy has a story for Walter: She gets a call from her sister, who is at (where else?) Cracker Barrel, a place so notoriously white that BuzzFeed’s Heben Nigatu has proffered “a cracker barrel” as a unit of measurement for a number of white people. Behind the Cracker Barrel, Christy’s sister spots a Muslim man who has pulled out a prayer mat, apparently due to his being on the road and needing a place to quickly pray. He tucks himself into what Christy calls the “alley” behind the restaurant, presumably to be out of folks’ way and not draw attention to himself. Christy’s sister is calling her to ask if she should call the police. You know, if you see something, say something. Christy says that she should. The man leaves shortly after the police arrive, and they follow him. But her sister “never found out if they found anything or what have you,” Christy explains, and so: I was initially disappointed to tune in to "Fox & Friends" host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show the day after the identities of the San Bernardino killers were revealed to find a guest host, Mary Walter. I’d sought out Fox News Radio expressly to hear the professional Islamophobe’s take, but the Islamophobia racket is a busy one, and Kilmeade was away doing an event for his recently published racist tract about America's (fallacious) centuries-long war with Islam. But Walter was a returning guest host, so she has Kilmeade and Fox’s seal of approval. Maybe she’d do. “Let’s go to Christy in Missouri…” Christy has a story for Walter: She gets a call from her sister, who is at (where else?) Cracker Barrel, a place so notoriously white that BuzzFeed’s Heben Nigatu has proffered “a cracker barrel” as a unit of measurement for a number of white people. Behind the Cracker Barrel, Christy’s sister spots a Muslim man who has pulled out a prayer mat, apparently due to his being on the road and needing a place to quickly pray. He tucks himself into what Christy calls the “alley” behind the restaurant, presumably to be out of folks’ way and not draw attention to himself. Christy’s sister is calling her to ask if she should call the police. You know, if you see something, say something. Christy says that she should. The man leaves shortly after the police arrive, and they follow him. But her sister “never found out if they found anything or what have you,” Christy explains, and so:
“it’s one of them cases where she said, ‘Well, did I do the right thing?’ And I said, “Yeah, cuz you never know. What if you'd have got home and youd've heard, 'Oh, mass shooting at a Cracker Barrel,' and here you could've prevented it.”Even though Christy gave her sister the green light on having men with guns follow a Muslim man for observing his faith, she seems to be confirming with a Fox News personality whether her advice was appropriate. And the replacement host, Mary Walter, believes it was. “Listen, I understand that they pray five times a day,” begins Walter. “I get it. But really? You have to pull out a prayer mat, you have to be on the floor? You can’t pray in your car?” Walter, a Catholic, does her rosary in traffic, she says. She wonders why the Muslim man can’t pray like a distracted Christian who fits time for the everlasting, all-powerful creator of the universe into commercial breaks and brief moments at stop lights. After a brief, obligatory nod to bedrock Constitutional rights--”I don’t have a problem with people publicly practicing their religion”--Walter effectively concurs with the caller. “However, during a time of war, if you don’t want to be profiled, the better part of valor it may be to not do that--for the time being.” Just a momentary suspension of the First Amendment while an apparently interminable War on Terror persists. Walter, having someone so frighteningly close to the front lines of the war on the call, asks if Christy is worried about terrorism where she lives. Christy lives in the Ozarks, one of the most remote and backwoods parts of America. Cracker Barrel country. “Oh yes,” says Christy. “Yes. We hold meetings. We hold meetings in taverns, and houses, and church basements...and people talk about what’s going on.” They’re ready, too, reports Christy. “People are armed to the hilt.” But it wouldn’t be a conversation with a Fox News-watching rural white American without conflating the Islamic terrorism threat with Barack Obama. “And I can also tell you this,” Christy continues. “You know, Obama talkin’ about takin’ guns...I know a lot of people that are in motorcycle gangs--clubs, not gangs, clubs--but their clubhouses are locked and stocked. I mean, they are loaded with ammo. They’re prepared.” Prepared for what, again? ISIS or Obama? Also, did Christy just snitch on an illegal motorcycle gang? (Club! I meant club!) Right, one of those motorcycle “clubs” armed like Seal Team 6. But it’s a Muslim man peacefully praying that we’re supposed to scared of. So Christy has revealed that her world is one of racist, Islamophobic paramilitary motorcycle gangs who arm themselves according to conspiracy theories about our president. This is where Walter will start to distance herself from the caller, lest Fox News be seen to validate that sort of thinking. Right? Nope. “I want to move there, number one,” Walter says excitedly. “But number two, I trust those people. Am I wrong? If it came to a war in this country, in the homeland, those are the people I trust.” In just a couple minutes we went from some poor, innocent Muslim man getting harassed by police officers for praying to praising what sounds like a right-wing militia with extremely racist notions of where the guns should probably be pointed. And this is how the GOP ended up with its far-right-wing problem. Its media organ only has one direction: to ratchet the discourse ever-rightward, to let the most reactionary elements steer the discourse. Christy and her people are rustic, patriotic heroes, not threats. A long time ago, back in the quaint, halcyon days of 2008, a guy like Senator John McCain would push back on the worst impulses of white reactionary racism and Islamophobia. But he’d get booed for it, and conservatives would blame his eventual electoral defeat on his purported milquetoast centrism. Just seven years later, the product of right-wing media, Trumpism, reigns. Unlike McCain, Trump not only permits, but actively affirms, radical voices, tacitly when not explicitly. Why would he not, if Fox News is a forum for millions to celebrate fantasies of insurrectionary violence and state suppression of Muslims? It doesn’t pay to be the adult in the room.
I was initially disappointed to tune in to "Fox & Friends" host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show the day after the identities of the San Bernardino killers were revealed to find a guest host, Mary Walter. I’d sought out Fox News Radio expressly to hear the professional Islamophobe’s take, but the Islamophobia racket is a busy one, and Kilmeade was away doing an event for his recently published racist tract about America's (fallacious) centuries-long war with Islam. But Walter was a returning guest host, so she has Kilmeade and Fox’s seal of approval. Maybe she’d do. “Let’s go to Christy in Missouri…” Christy has a story for Walter: She gets a call from her sister, who is at (where else?) Cracker Barrel, a place so notoriously white that BuzzFeed’s Heben Nigatu has proffered “a cracker barrel” as a unit of measurement for a number of white people. Behind the Cracker Barrel, Christy’s sister spots a Muslim man who has pulled out a prayer mat, apparently due to his being on the road and needing a place to quickly pray. He tucks himself into what Christy calls the “alley” behind the restaurant, presumably to be out of folks’ way and not draw attention to himself. Christy’s sister is calling her to ask if she should call the police. You know, if you see something, say something. Christy says that she should. The man leaves shortly after the police arrive, and they follow him. But her sister “never found out if they found anything or what have you,” Christy explains, and so: “it’s one of them cases where she said, ‘Well, did I do the right thing?’ And I said, “Yeah, cuz you never know. What if you'd have got home and youd've heard, 'Oh, mass shooting at a Cracker Barrel,' and here you could've prevented it.”Even though Christy gave her sister the green light on having men with guns follow a Muslim man for observing his faith, she seems to be confirming with a Fox News personality whether her advice was appropriate. And the replacement host, Mary Walter, believes it was. “Listen, I understand that they pray five times a day,” begins Walter. “I get it. But really? You have to pull out a prayer mat, you have to be on the floor? You can’t pray in your car?” Walter, a Catholic, does her rosary in traffic, she says. She wonders why the Muslim man can’t pray like a distracted Christian who fits time for the everlasting, all-powerful creator of the universe into commercial breaks and brief moments at stop lights. After a brief, obligatory nod to bedrock Constitutional rights--”I don’t have a problem with people publicly practicing their religion”--Walter effectively concurs with the caller. “However, during a time of war, if you don’t want to be profiled, the better part of valor it may be to not do that--for the time being.” Just a momentary suspension of the First Amendment while an apparently interminable War on Terror persists. Walter, having someone so frighteningly close to the front lines of the war on the call, asks if Christy is worried about terrorism where she lives. Christy lives in the Ozarks, one of the most remote and backwoods parts of America. Cracker Barrel country. “Oh yes,” says Christy. “Yes. We hold meetings. We hold meetings in taverns, and houses, and church basements...and people talk about what’s going on.” They’re ready, too, reports Christy. “People are armed to the hilt.” But it wouldn’t be a conversation with a Fox News-watching rural white American without conflating the Islamic terrorism threat with Barack Obama. “And I can also tell you this,” Christy continues. “You know, Obama talkin’ about takin’ guns...I know a lot of people that are in motorcycle gangs--clubs, not gangs, clubs--but their clubhouses are locked and stocked. I mean, they are loaded with ammo. They’re prepared.” Prepared for what, again? ISIS or Obama? Also, did Christy just snitch on an illegal motorcycle gang? (Club! I meant club!) Right, one of those motorcycle “clubs” armed like Seal Team 6. But it’s a Muslim man peacefully praying that we’re supposed to scared of. So Christy has revealed that her world is one of racist, Islamophobic paramilitary motorcycle gangs who arm themselves according to conspiracy theories about our president. This is where Walter will start to distance herself from the caller, lest Fox News be seen to validate that sort of thinking. Right? Nope. “I want to move there, number one,” Walter says excitedly. “But number two, I trust those people. Am I wrong? If it came to a war in this country, in the homeland, those are the people I trust.” In just a couple minutes we went from some poor, innocent Muslim man getting harassed by police officers for praying to praising what sounds like a right-wing militia with extremely racist notions of where the guns should probably be pointed. And this is how the GOP ended up with its far-right-wing problem. Its media organ only has one direction: to ratchet the discourse ever-rightward, to let the most reactionary elements steer the discourse. Christy and her people are rustic, patriotic heroes, not threats. A long time ago, back in the quaint, halcyon days of 2008, a guy like Senator John McCain would push back on the worst impulses of white reactionary racism and Islamophobia. But he’d get booed for it, and conservatives would blame his eventual electoral defeat on his purported milquetoast centrism. Just seven years later, the product of right-wing media, Trumpism, reigns. Unlike McCain, Trump not only permits, but actively affirms, radical voices, tacitly when not explicitly. Why would he not, if Fox News is a forum for millions to celebrate fantasies of insurrectionary violence and state suppression of Muslims? It doesn’t pay to be the adult in the room.
I was initially disappointed to tune in to "Fox & Friends" host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show the day after the identities of the San Bernardino killers were revealed to find a guest host, Mary Walter. I’d sought out Fox News Radio expressly to hear the professional Islamophobe’s take, but the Islamophobia racket is a busy one, and Kilmeade was away doing an event for his recently published racist tract about America's (fallacious) centuries-long war with Islam. But Walter was a returning guest host, so she has Kilmeade and Fox’s seal of approval. Maybe she’d do. “Let’s go to Christy in Missouri…” Christy has a story for Walter: She gets a call from her sister, who is at (where else?) Cracker Barrel, a place so notoriously white that BuzzFeed’s Heben Nigatu has proffered “a cracker barrel” as a unit of measurement for a number of white people. Behind the Cracker Barrel, Christy’s sister spots a Muslim man who has pulled out a prayer mat, apparently due to his being on the road and needing a place to quickly pray. He tucks himself into what Christy calls the “alley” behind the restaurant, presumably to be out of folks’ way and not draw attention to himself. Christy’s sister is calling her to ask if she should call the police. You know, if you see something, say something. Christy says that she should. The man leaves shortly after the police arrive, and they follow him. But her sister “never found out if they found anything or what have you,” Christy explains, and so: “it’s one of them cases where she said, ‘Well, did I do the right thing?’ And I said, “Yeah, cuz you never know. What if you'd have got home and youd've heard, 'Oh, mass shooting at a Cracker Barrel,' and here you could've prevented it.”Even though Christy gave her sister the green light on having men with guns follow a Muslim man for observing his faith, she seems to be confirming with a Fox News personality whether her advice was appropriate. And the replacement host, Mary Walter, believes it was. “Listen, I understand that they pray five times a day,” begins Walter. “I get it. But really? You have to pull out a prayer mat, you have to be on the floor? You can’t pray in your car?” Walter, a Catholic, does her rosary in traffic, she says. She wonders why the Muslim man can’t pray like a distracted Christian who fits time for the everlasting, all-powerful creator of the universe into commercial breaks and brief moments at stop lights. After a brief, obligatory nod to bedrock Constitutional rights--”I don’t have a problem with people publicly practicing their religion”--Walter effectively concurs with the caller. “However, during a time of war, if you don’t want to be profiled, the better part of valor it may be to not do that--for the time being.” Just a momentary suspension of the First Amendment while an apparently interminable War on Terror persists. Walter, having someone so frighteningly close to the front lines of the war on the call, asks if Christy is worried about terrorism where she lives. Christy lives in the Ozarks, one of the most remote and backwoods parts of America. Cracker Barrel country. “Oh yes,” says Christy. “Yes. We hold meetings. We hold meetings in taverns, and houses, and church basements...and people talk about what’s going on.” They’re ready, too, reports Christy. “People are armed to the hilt.” But it wouldn’t be a conversation with a Fox News-watching rural white American without conflating the Islamic terrorism threat with Barack Obama. “And I can also tell you this,” Christy continues. “You know, Obama talkin’ about takin’ guns...I know a lot of people that are in motorcycle gangs--clubs, not gangs, clubs--but their clubhouses are locked and stocked. I mean, they are loaded with ammo. They’re prepared.” Prepared for what, again? ISIS or Obama? Also, did Christy just snitch on an illegal motorcycle gang? (Club! I meant club!) Right, one of those motorcycle “clubs” armed like Seal Team 6. But it’s a Muslim man peacefully praying that we’re supposed to scared of. So Christy has revealed that her world is one of racist, Islamophobic paramilitary motorcycle gangs who arm themselves according to conspiracy theories about our president. This is where Walter will start to distance herself from the caller, lest Fox News be seen to validate that sort of thinking. Right? Nope. “I want to move there, number one,” Walter says excitedly. “But number two, I trust those people. Am I wrong? If it came to a war in this country, in the homeland, those are the people I trust.” In just a couple minutes we went from some poor, innocent Muslim man getting harassed by police officers for praying to praising what sounds like a right-wing militia with extremely racist notions of where the guns should probably be pointed. And this is how the GOP ended up with its far-right-wing problem. Its media organ only has one direction: to ratchet the discourse ever-rightward, to let the most reactionary elements steer the discourse. Christy and her people are rustic, patriotic heroes, not threats. A long time ago, back in the quaint, halcyon days of 2008, a guy like Senator John McCain would push back on the worst impulses of white reactionary racism and Islamophobia. But he’d get booed for it, and conservatives would blame his eventual electoral defeat on his purported milquetoast centrism. Just seven years later, the product of right-wing media, Trumpism, reigns. Unlike McCain, Trump not only permits, but actively affirms, radical voices, tacitly when not explicitly. Why would he not, if Fox News is a forum for millions to celebrate fantasies of insurrectionary violence and state suppression of Muslims? It doesn’t pay to be the adult in the room.
Rent is too damn high: We are in the worst rental affordability crisis in U.S. history
For $3,500 you can get a one-bedroom in San Francisco ... too much? Then try New York City with a median rent for a one-bedroom priced at $3,391. Rents are increasing at alarming rates throughout the U.S. from Honolulu to Denver and young adults are finding it harder to survive on their own; a recent study concluded that more young adults are living with their parents in 2015 than during the recession. Thankfully there is hope - 'micro apartments' are gaining popularity and for a mere $950 - $1,492 per month you can have your very own 260 to 360-square-foot studio space in the heart of Manhattan.
December 6, 2015
How “The Leftovers” became brilliant: HBO’s depressed dark horse finally found its voice — and now it sings
The eighth episode of this season of “The Leftovers” starts with a dead man. Kevin Garvey (Justin Theroux) takes poison and collapses, convulsing, at the end of episode seven, as part of a desperate attempt to silence a voice in his brain. It looks like he died—because he did die, in that his heart stopped and he stopped breathing. In “International Assassin,” he comes to—naked and submerged in a bathtub. He surfaces, gasping, to discover that he is in a hotel room he has never seen before. If he has not died, the world is at least transformed. The TV is playing static and won’t turn off. Some of his own clothes are in the closet, under a placard that reads, “Know who you are, and then adorn yourself accordingly.” When he opens the door, the man from room service tries to kill him. And throughout, the opening bars to the unsettling, show-stopping “Va, pensiero”—composed by Giuseppe Verdi—scores Kevin’s engagement with this fraught dreamscape. The effect is difficult to forget. In Kevin’s wild search for meaning, the music reflects the layers of confusion and clarity that come with any unpleasant awakening—whether that’s a bathtub coming-to or a spiritual epiphany. (In Kevin’s case, it’s probably both.) The music haunts him, and us, throughout the episode, to its incredible, difficult-to-explain conclusion. “International Assassin” is an unbelievably amazing episode of television. “Va, pensiero” appears in act three of the opera “Nabucco,” and “International Assassin,” placed late in the second season, is a similar crescendo to a show-stopping number. And for me, it came unexpectedly. I did not care for season one for the show, though I was able to find merit in some episodes; season two has made me a convert. It inspires passion in its fans, because although other shows are good, “The Leftovers” is vital. It is a weekly reckoning with what it means to be a person, which often means reckoning with pain, despair, loss and meaninglessness. It’s not an easy watch, but in some ways, the difficulty of the show is what is so rewarding about it—as if, finally, there is a show that understands how awful it can feel to be a human being in the world. We don’t live in a world with “the Departure,” as the characters on “The Leftovers” call it, but we all have our losses and our burdens and our griefs. Less than trying to explain the mystery of why both terrible and wonderful things happen the way they do, “The Leftovers” tries to relate how humans deal with unanswered questions and missing pieces. It’s done that from the start. But the second season does it much, much better. Having watched the finale in advance of its broadcast tonight, I can say confidently that this is a season of television worth investing in. But more than that, “The Leftovers” is an extraordinary case study for how to improve a show. Studios and networks have been fixated on quantity more than quality in the years since the Golden Age of Television was proclaimed to have begun. As is discussed over and over, by critics including myself, this has led to a glut of shows that are good enough, but few that are truly brilliant. Showrunner Damon Lindelof has been quite candid about the mistakes of season one, such as in this interview with Alan Sepinwall of HitFix:
I was really depressed while writing the first season of the show … I was mainlining Cormac McCarthy's "The Road," and "Gimme Shelter," and all of these post-apocalyptic stories. It’s like, "How can I take the feeling of these people scrounging for Coke cans and sardines and a burnt sky? How can I take that feeling and just put that feeling in the world that we know? Can I create an existential apocalypse?" And of course, I probably also should have been thinking, "Why would anybody want to watch that?"The answer is that there is a universality to struggle and suffering; but it has taken the show a while to find it. In the first season, the struggles of the suburban town of Mapleton were irritatingly niche—both culturally insular, and as I wrote at the time, disappointingly non-diverse with respect to either religion or race. Depression seemed to be advanced as a superior state of being; the terrible practices of the show’s cult, the Guilty Remnant, seemed to be condoned. There was a bleakness to the show that defied enjoyment—a despair that went past curiosity, or faith, or most importantly, the occasional experience of joy. It’s almost as if Damon Lindelof and the rest of the crew read my notes and then responded to every single one of them (which, I should clarify, is possible, but highly unlikely). The Guilty Remnant is heavily backgrounded in season two. The show finally introduced a family of color, the Murphys, and moved from the claustrophobic town of Mapleton to Jardin, Texas, where people from all faiths, from all over the country, are looking for answers. It honed in on a specific mystery, introduced in the season two premiere, and it has found a way to build that story across perspectives (including a crazy-brilliant opening, in the premiere, that centers on a cavewoman trying to raise her baby). It has truly pushed the envelope, and in the process, Lindelof has brushed off and employed some of the skills he honed on “Lost”—overlapping stories, a quest for answers, sustained suspense and occasional encounters with the supernatural. And I think it has finally found that ring of universality—that crucial component for a story that is reaching so grandly. In “International Assassin,” for example, the hotel of Kevin’s wanderings could be purgatory, or the afterlife; the light at the end of the tunnel, or the dreamlike state of a subconscious on the brink of death. But that hotel outside time and space where Kevin journeys is a place we’ll all be going, eventually. And if you are a viewer who hasn’t, you know, completely and totally come to terms with your own mortality, then Kevin’s struggle is your own, even though he is a distinct and flawed individual. To wit: “Va, pensiero” comes from the opera “Nabucco,” which tells the story of the Jewish exiles far from their home during the Babylonian Captivity, after the destruction of the first temple. Verdi wrote this opera shortly following personal devastation—the deaths of his two very young children, just a year apart, and then the death of his wife shortly thereafter. It is part of the mythos of the composer that his first great work followed this immensely tragic time in his life; Verdi did not write the words to “Va, pensiero,” in which the exiles mourn their lost Zion, but the sentiment of loss and despair is evident in the music, which begins with almost disjointed passages of aggressive fortissimo and resolves into pastoral chorus. The vocal parts sing the same notes for nearly the entire song, except for a few choice moments of harmony. It is music that is about loss, and it is music that was created through loss. The same is true of “The Leftovers,” I think, which has managed to find a path through failures and Lindelof’s own depression to a well-crafted and humane second season. To put it simply, the show has found a way to sing.The eighth episode of this season of “The Leftovers” starts with a dead man. Kevin Garvey (Justin Theroux) takes poison and collapses, convulsing, at the end of episode seven, as part of a desperate attempt to silence a voice in his brain. It looks like he died—because he did die, in that his heart stopped and he stopped breathing. In “International Assassin,” he comes to—naked and submerged in a bathtub. He surfaces, gasping, to discover that he is in a hotel room he has never seen before. If he has not died, the world is at least transformed. The TV is playing static and won’t turn off. Some of his own clothes are in the closet, under a placard that reads, “Know who you are, and then adorn yourself accordingly.” When he opens the door, the man from room service tries to kill him. And throughout, the opening bars to the unsettling, show-stopping “Va, pensiero”—composed by Giuseppe Verdi—scores Kevin’s engagement with this fraught dreamscape. The effect is difficult to forget. In Kevin’s wild search for meaning, the music reflects the layers of confusion and clarity that come with any unpleasant awakening—whether that’s a bathtub coming-to or a spiritual epiphany. (In Kevin’s case, it’s probably both.) The music haunts him, and us, throughout the episode, to its incredible, difficult-to-explain conclusion. “International Assassin” is an unbelievably amazing episode of television. “Va, pensiero” appears in act three of the opera “Nabucco,” and “International Assassin,” placed late in the second season, is a similar crescendo to a show-stopping number. And for me, it came unexpectedly. I did not care for season one for the show, though I was able to find merit in some episodes; season two has made me a convert. It inspires passion in its fans, because although other shows are good, “The Leftovers” is vital. It is a weekly reckoning with what it means to be a person, which often means reckoning with pain, despair, loss and meaninglessness. It’s not an easy watch, but in some ways, the difficulty of the show is what is so rewarding about it—as if, finally, there is a show that understands how awful it can feel to be a human being in the world. We don’t live in a world with “the Departure,” as the characters on “The Leftovers” call it, but we all have our losses and our burdens and our griefs. Less than trying to explain the mystery of why both terrible and wonderful things happen the way they do, “The Leftovers” tries to relate how humans deal with unanswered questions and missing pieces. It’s done that from the start. But the second season does it much, much better. Having watched the finale in advance of its broadcast tonight, I can say confidently that this is a season of television worth investing in. But more than that, “The Leftovers” is an extraordinary case study for how to improve a show. Studios and networks have been fixated on quantity more than quality in the years since the Golden Age of Television was proclaimed to have begun. As is discussed over and over, by critics including myself, this has led to a glut of shows that are good enough, but few that are truly brilliant. Showrunner Damon Lindelof has been quite candid about the mistakes of season one, such as in this interview with Alan Sepinwall of HitFix:
I was really depressed while writing the first season of the show … I was mainlining Cormac McCarthy's "The Road," and "Gimme Shelter," and all of these post-apocalyptic stories. It’s like, "How can I take the feeling of these people scrounging for Coke cans and sardines and a burnt sky? How can I take that feeling and just put that feeling in the world that we know? Can I create an existential apocalypse?" And of course, I probably also should have been thinking, "Why would anybody want to watch that?"The answer is that there is a universality to struggle and suffering; but it has taken the show a while to find it. In the first season, the struggles of the suburban town of Mapleton were irritatingly niche—both culturally insular, and as I wrote at the time, disappointingly non-diverse with respect to either religion or race. Depression seemed to be advanced as a superior state of being; the terrible practices of the show’s cult, the Guilty Remnant, seemed to be condoned. There was a bleakness to the show that defied enjoyment—a despair that went past curiosity, or faith, or most importantly, the occasional experience of joy. It’s almost as if Damon Lindelof and the rest of the crew read my notes and then responded to every single one of them (which, I should clarify, is possible, but highly unlikely). The Guilty Remnant is heavily backgrounded in season two. The show finally introduced a family of color, the Murphys, and moved from the claustrophobic town of Mapleton to Jardin, Texas, where people from all faiths, from all over the country, are looking for answers. It honed in on a specific mystery, introduced in the season two premiere, and it has found a way to build that story across perspectives (including a crazy-brilliant opening, in the premiere, that centers on a cavewoman trying to raise her baby). It has truly pushed the envelope, and in the process, Lindelof has brushed off and employed some of the skills he honed on “Lost”—overlapping stories, a quest for answers, sustained suspense and occasional encounters with the supernatural. And I think it has finally found that ring of universality—that crucial component for a story that is reaching so grandly. In “International Assassin,” for example, the hotel of Kevin’s wanderings could be purgatory, or the afterlife; the light at the end of the tunnel, or the dreamlike state of a subconscious on the brink of death. But that hotel outside time and space where Kevin journeys is a place we’ll all be going, eventually. And if you are a viewer who hasn’t, you know, completely and totally come to terms with your own mortality, then Kevin’s struggle is your own, even though he is a distinct and flawed individual. To wit: “Va, pensiero” comes from the opera “Nabucco,” which tells the story of the Jewish exiles far from their home during the Babylonian Captivity, after the destruction of the first temple. Verdi wrote this opera shortly following personal devastation—the deaths of his two very young children, just a year apart, and then the death of his wife shortly thereafter. It is part of the mythos of the composer that his first great work followed this immensely tragic time in his life; Verdi did not write the words to “Va, pensiero,” in which the exiles mourn their lost Zion, but the sentiment of loss and despair is evident in the music, which begins with almost disjointed passages of aggressive fortissimo and resolves into pastoral chorus. The vocal parts sing the same notes for nearly the entire song, except for a few choice moments of harmony. It is music that is about loss, and it is music that was created through loss. The same is true of “The Leftovers,” I think, which has managed to find a path through failures and Lindelof’s own depression to a well-crafted and humane second season. To put it simply, the show has found a way to sing.
Mom, did you ever get high?
It could be anything, the question that stops you in your parental tracks. A 5-year-old, his sweet voice filled with the kind of moral certainty that comes easy to a kindergartener, points out that smoking cigarettes is so bad and wrong: “Why would anyone ever smoke, Mommy?” Or your 10-year-old, noticing for the first time that you don’t seem happy to go on the annual holiday pilgrimage to see your parents: “Why do you hate Grandpa?” Or the languid, slumping teenager, angrily tossing it back at you after you grill him about whether there will be drinking at the party he’s about to go to: “Obviously you drank when you were 17. You are such a hypocrite!” So what do you do? Do you evade, cling to the code of parental silence, change the subject? Or do you crumble, admit everything, overshare, lose your dignity as well as any leg up you might have on these frustrating offspring who seem to see right through you? More from DAME: "Is 'Superman' the Greatest Adoption Story of All Time?" Most of us have done both. When I was a teenager, experimenting with just about everything in my path, I was fortunate enough to have a father who leveled with me. He warned me about the drugs he’d seen do the most damage (alcohol and cocaine), and told me that pot was not a big deal but advised me never to drive stoned. He let me know that I could come to him without fear of punishment or censure. I shared his stories, and mine, with my daughter. Not because I wanted to give up my parental authority, but because to me, being authentic and even vulnerable with my kids has always made them trust me more. As with so many things, we can learn a lot from comedian Louis CK. In a recent NPR interview with Terry Gross, Louis described his teen pothead years, during which he was “barely cognizant of any kind of life; I never went to classes.” Now that his daughters are tweens, he told Gross, it’s a topic he thinks about a lot. There’s no way he would hide the truth of his youthful indiscretions, he said. “My kids know that I did drugs. I think it’s important to share your mistakes with your kids—because you get knowledge from your mistakes and wisdom from it. If you can’t pass that on, what good are you?” Still, it’s not easy to know how much to reveal, especially when kids are very little. “I’ve been careful about sharing certain things,” says Marie of her 6-year-old son. “He doesn’t know that I ever smoked. He doesn’t know that I was treated for alcoholism, or that I did drugs.” But smoking is one of those things young kids learn about. “He noticed people smoking on the street,” says Marie, “and he would see the no smoking sigh and he would say ‘no smoking!’” Still, if or when it comes up that Marie smoked for years before he was born, she says, “I would tell him the truth, but I definitely would have a lot of feelings about it. It would be the first big thing where I’m telling him to do one thing and I’ve done another entirely.” More from DAME: "When Will Women Rule the World?" For Jeanne Eschenberg Sager, the mother of a 10-year-old daughter, the issue that gives her pause is her own very young marriage. “I got married at 18,” she says, “and while I wouldn’t say I regret it, I struggle any time my daughter comes near the ‘how you and Daddy met’ story.” Sager, parenting editor at SheKnows.com, expects that one day her daughter may accuse her of hypocrisy. “I absolutely, 100 percent, without a doubt do not want my daughter getting married at 18! But it’s hard to tell a kid, ‘no, don’t do it, it doesn’t work,’ when you’re living, breathing proof that every once in awhile … it does.” There are the things we did in our youth—smoking, drinking, shoplifting, or sleeping around—that we fear telling our kids about. But then there’s another category entirely: the hidden traumas and past pains, the horrible things that may have made us who we are, but that we wish our kids would never have to know about. In Lisa’s* case, it’s sexual abuse, long buried and only remembered years later, at 38, when her kids were too young to be told about it. It took a long time, she says, to process the memories herself. She told her two daughters, then around 14 and 10, only after intensive therapy on her own. The telling, Lisa says, “isn’t just one conversation.” It unfolds over time, more detail added only as kids ask and are ready. “I’m going to tell you a little bit right now,” she recalls telling her kids, “not more than you can handle.” “The ways that I’ve healed and gotten stronger are the things that I’ve channeled into my parenting,” she adds. “Honestly, the best way to parent, I think is just to be on top of my own stuff. What I’ve learned through it about how to be a human being, I bring into my parenting.” Dr. Jessica Michaelson, an Austin-based psychologist who works exclusively with parents, agrees that parents with difficult pasts should be thoughtful in how they share their stories with their own children. Therapy can help a parent “come to an at-peace place with a variety of things, so that when it does come up, they feel grounded,” she says. The general rule of thumb is to wait until a child asks, Michaelson says, and not to volunteer too much information too soon. “I’m not a proponent of parents just volunteering things for their own healing,” she adds. But, she adds, once parents have processed their own experiences, it’s very useful to share them with kids. “One, I think it communicates that part of our responsibility to a well-lived life is to contend with what is real,” Michaelson says. “ Also, I do think that children, if the parent doesn’t show that they’ve grappled with things, that they’ve been vulnerable, that they’ve made mistakes, that they’ve had hard experiences—a child can very easily feel that all of their bad experiences are very particular to them and it’s something about their badness, that’s made something happen.” More from DAME: "Why Do We Police Each Other's Grief?" Telling your kids about the not-so-great parts of your own childhood, she adds, “shows your child they’re not alone in these struggles. Regardless of how you are as a parent, your child is going to idealize you. So to see that it’s compatible that you could have had all these struggles, mistakes, and experiences, and still be good and worthy in their eyes, I think is a very good thing for them.” For Marie, the truth is a potent antidote to the moralism she remembers from health class in high school. “To me, as a young teenager, it made those things seem more intriguing, because they were forbidden,” she says. “Absolutely, I’d like to avoid that.” Jeanne agrees. Growing up in a family in which her parents claimed they never did anything bad as kids, she says, made her feel they couldn’t relate to her real life. “I want my daughter to really feel she can trust me and trust what I say to her,” she says. “So I’ll be open with her about my mistakes, but also about how life works—about the fact that yes, most people have sex before marriage, her parents included, most people try alcohol, and so on. I don’t ever want her to bypass talking to me about important things because she fears being judged by me.” * Some names have been changed. - See more at: http://www.damemagazine.com/2015/12/0...
Student loans don’t have to be this miserable: The simple fix that could save our college grads
This weekend, Kevin Carey, head of New America’s Education Policy Program, penned a piece for the New York Times featuring the story of Liz Kelley, a parochial school teacher whose student loan balance has ballooned to $410,000. As with most Times pieces on higher education, the piece has caused quite a stir (see here, from Don Heller at Michigan State; or the article’s comments section; or Twitter), and is serving as a kind of Rorschach test for people with opinions on college affordability and debt. Some fear that descriptions of anomalous loan balances accrued on loans provided by the federal government will lead to the institution of underwriting student loans—thereby limiting access to poor students or students who want to study in non-lucrative fields that provide a tangible (think social work) or intangible (think English) benefit in the labor force. For others, that would be a feature and not a bug. But my takeaway from the article wasn’t that we should be underwriting student loans, but rather how weak and complex the backend protections are for people who do fall behind on their debts when life gets in the way. Kelley, the article’s protagonist, managed to accumulate student debt from her undergraduate education at a private college, followed by a stint in law school and a graduate teaching program (including a brief time in a Ph.D. program), and finally through Parent PLUS loans after her children had maxed out their federal loan eligibility. Like anyone else who has been frustrated by high-interest private or graduate school loans, Kelley found her balance had spiraled upward due to hundreds of thousands of dollars in accrued interest. But she also faced some debilitating luck – including a rare medical condition, concentrated effects from the Great Recession, and a divorce – that left her unable to make a dent in her loan payments and forced her to cash out her pension fund. There’s recourse available to people who find themselves in cycles of unpayable debt; it’s called bankruptcy. Unfortunately for student debtors, education loans are exceedingly difficult to discharge in bankruptcy, which makes little sense in an era where college is unattainable for most without student loans, and where student debt is the highest form of non-mortgage debt in the economy. We argue this in a new brief released last week that goes through the legal and policy history behind the treatment of student debt in bankruptcy. The case against allowing student loans to be discharged mostly rests on fears of moral hazard—that an army of young people will get rich quick by racking up debt, discharging it upon graduation and spending the next few decades rebuilding their credit while federal taxpayers pick up the tab. A non-partisan commission debunked this theory in the late 1990s, finding that “available evidence does not support the notion that the bankruptcy system was systematically abused when student loans were more easily dischargeable.” In essence, these were phantom fears, but this didn’t stop Congress from making it far more difficult to discharge both federal and private student loans over the course of four decades. The thing is, students have never been allowed to engage in the “nightmare scenario” of walking away from debt upon graduation. When student loans were treated the same as most consumer debts (prior to and during the 1970s), borrowers still were required to repay student loans for five (and later seven) years before being able to allege that student loans presented an “undue hardship.” Our bankruptcy code has plenty of protections to prevent abuse of the system. Any student debtor in a universe where loans were dischargeable would still have to satisfy a “means test” like others filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. And it’s unclear how borrowing for tuition, fees, and living expenses should stick with someone any more than credit card debt—which can be taken on in service of virtually anything (including, yes, tuition and fees). Beyond bankruptcy, I took Carey’s piece to also implicitly argue for the improvement of loan forgiveness and income-based repayment programs, not to mention better servicing. Its mention got little attention toward the end, but starting next year Ms. Kelley could and should be eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness for all federal loans she took out for herself after 2007. Whether or not loan forgiveness should be targeted better or earlier (or incrementally) is a matter of debate, as is whether or not graduate school programs, in particular, should be held accountable on measures of cost or debt. Rather than underwriting loans, Carey seems to be arguing for the institution of loan limits on graduate school PLUS loans, similar to those imposed on undergraduates (who currently can only borrow up to $57,500). Color me unconvinced that this would be a silver bullet—after all, prices are rising pretty darn quickly for undergraduate programs even with loan limits in place—but it may slow costs or limit borrowing at some of the more unscrupulous graduate programs. But the bottom line is that right now, it’s outrageous that someone can make basically reasonable decisions—go to college and graduate school, take out loans for kids once they’ve maxed out their borrowing—but be unable to rehabilitate or see any relief after a debilitating medical condition and divorce in the backdrop of the worst recession in generations. This is pretty low-hanging fruit, and it's the kind of thing that our centuries-old series of bankruptcy laws are supposed to cover.
Warming up to “Baby It’s Cold Outside”: What my mother taught me about the guy who wrote that “rapey” Christmas song
I brace myself for it every year. Come December, before the first snowfall, we’ll see a flurry of articles about “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” now often called the “date-rape song.” We'll read opinion pieces and watch parodies that place this song squarely in the camp of a "no means yes" patriarchy, a story about a man who uses alcohol and coercion to make a reluctant woman stay the night. But what if the writer of the song was actually a feminist? What if Frank Loesser, the famed lyricist of "Guys and Dolls" and "How to Succeed In Business Without Really Trying," should be thought of as a progressive voice in the fight for gender equality, as a man who was ahead of his time in recognizing and calling attention to the social plight of women?
***
In the 1950s there was a young woman from New York City who put herself through Sarah Lawrence by working in commercials and on television shows. She spoke fluent Italian, and skated and acted in an NBC Hallmark Hall of Fame when television was still live. One night, she went to a dance at Barnard College and a young man asked her for a turn on the floor. “Are you here to get your M.R.S.?” he asked. It took her several seconds to get the “joke.” Was she there to find a husband, to meet her prince? She wasn’t. She excused herself and decided to stick with her current boyfriend, a genius from Cal-Tech. He had a troubling history and was not the greatest guy ever, but his brain could keep up with hers, and she valued that above all else. In 1961, at 25, this young performer sat in a rehearsal hall in midtown Manhattan. She was now the lead dancer in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying." During breaks, she would scribble poetry in a notebook. She wrote about the man she was supposed to marry, about how maybe it wasn’t really such a good idea to leave a Broadway show, not just to marry and move cross-country to Los Angeles, but to marry this particular man, who maybe wasn’t really such a great guy, despite his massive intellect — an intellect she feared had no equal and she could not live without. She showed some of her anxiety poems — humorous couplets about problematic men — to the lyricist of "How to Succeed." His name was Frank Loesser. He’d written the music and lyrics to "Guys and Dolls" and he was back with a show that would go on to win a Pulitzer. He liked her poems. He told her to keep writing, to hold onto her role in a hit show and not to move cross-country. And maybe not to marry that man, the one so eager to pull her from a burgeoning career. In 1961, "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" was an unexpected smash. It’s been revived bunches of times, because the music and lyrics are clever and catchy. Every time it’s revived, the show elicits head-scratching. Was Frank Loesser serious with those lyrics? Or is it — could it be? — a parody of patriarchal office culture, of the mythology of the dream of suburbia and housewifery? Consider these lyrics, sung by the show’s heroine:I’ll be so happy to keep his dinner warm As he goes onward, and upward Happy to keep his dinner warm As he comes wearily home from downtown I’ll be there wearing the wifely uniform As he looks through me, right through me Waiting to say good evening dear, I’m pregnant. What’s new with you, from downtown? Oh, to be loved by a man I respect To bask in the glow Of his perfectly understandable neglect.Can lyrics get more farcical? Still, it’s quite early in the timeline for overt feminism. So audiences and critics scratch their heads, unsure of what Loesser was up to. But should they be unsure? The song "Baby It’s Cold Outside" stirs up more complex controversy. Loesser wrote it with his wife. They performed the song together for friends at Christmas parties. He later sold it to Hollywood, and throughout the years the song has fallen in and out of fashion. Many now consider it an anthem for date rape; others defend it. A staple of holiday radio, the song stirs debate about the intricacies of sexual game-playing. To many, the song advocates coercion. Just as the context of the song’s origin matters (it was a private show-piece for him and his wife, to entertain friends at parties) the context of its presentation matters. Could the song be used as a backdrop to a horrible visual? Could a person listening to the song project his own misogyny onto it? Of course — but then again, any work of art can be projected onto, re-fashioned and interpreted in numerous ways. What disturbs so many about the song is that — like sexual fantasy — it refuses to play by our politics and values. It hits a nerve. If we enjoy the song, are we endorsing it — and what does that mean? That it might be fun to play the game the song suggests? That we acknowledge that sometimes people express ambivalence in foreplay — as part of foreplay? Worse, that we are supportive of the ancient and persistent propagation of rape culture? Are we over-thinking this duet, penned by a husband and wife for private parties and first performed in public at a very different time? Are we trashing a song that wasn't conceived for the public, and by extension, trashing a lyricist whose politics deserve more careful examination? Luckily, he provided plenty more songs by which to judge his opinion of women. "How To Succeed" is rich in such material. But before we return to its many fascinating lyrics, I admit a personal stake in the discussion. I have a bit of insider knowledge of Frank Loesser. Not enough to make sweeping conclusions, but enough to perhaps enlarge our understanding of his agenda. My mother was that dancer in 1961, scribbling into her notebook, writing funny and wrenching poems that sent up her own troubled relationship to men and marriage. “Don’t give up writing,” he said. He also offered her a confidence. He never felt successful, he told her, because his parents, classical musicians, had hoped he would follow their path. His mother, he reported, told her friends that “Frank wrote dirty songs for the theater.” I guess a Pulitzer Prize isn’t enough to please some parents. He told my mother about his history of insecurities, anxieties and self-doubt. His own struggles with the expectations of others, he hoped, would be a lesson to her in holding fast to her own identity. My mother did move to Los Angeles after her tenure in "How to Succeed." She did leave the show to get married, and to marry that guy who maybe wasn’t the greatest guy in the world. She snagged lots of work in Hollywood and in so doing helped the guy she married through medical school. She danced on variety shows in a time when Frank Sinatra could ask a producer to pile a row of bikini-clad dancers on his tuxedo-clad body and snap a photo. My mother was the only dancer that day to refuse this request. For this, she was soundly scolded by the producer. That she managed to keep working as a performer after marriage was, in that era, a triumph. Her friend had turned down a lead in a Broadway show because her screenwriter husband said, “You can’t go to New York now! We just got married and you have a house to decorate!” My mother knew a little something about battling a power structure corroded with sexism and misogyny.
***
My mother is 76. Now she battles premature dementia caused by a sudden brain bleed six years ago. Listening to show tunes combats dementia, so I play a lot of music for her. My mother sits on my couch and we play all the old shows. I recently bought a copy of "How to Succeed" and put it on to surprise her. I wanted to know how much she remembered; I hoped it would at least ring a bell. When Bonnie Scott’s operatic voice poured out of my tiny speakers, singing the opening verse of "Happy to Keep His Dinner Warm," my mother’s eyes sparkled; her posture changed. Neurons switched on and lit up like flood lights — synapses lining the path of her history began to fire. She traveled that path back in time.New Rochelle New Rochelle That’s the place where the mansion will be For me and the darling bright young man I’ve picked out for marrying me.“Frank Loesser was ahead of his time,” my mother said. Thank heaven for long-term memory. She remembered everything. My mother and I sailed into Act II, and a song called “Cinderella, Darling.” In it, a group of female office workers beg their friend not to break off an engagement to her boss. He isn’t paying enough attention to her, but so what? She has a chance to “fly from the land of carbon paper to the land of flowered chintz”! Their pleading swells to an anthem:
How often does a Cinderella get a crack at the prince? We were raised on you, darling, and we’ve loved you ever since Don’t mess up a major miracle Don’t give up the prince! We want to see his Highness Married to your lowness On you, Cinderella, sits the onus You’re the fable, the symbol, of glorified unemployment…From today’s vantage point, it seems impossible to imagine that "Cinderella, Darling" is not biting commentary. In 2015, so many articles and books have been written about “princess culture” and Cinderella specifically that the potential insidiousness of the fairytale is a constant undercurrent of our cultural conversation, a staple of the catalogue of anxieties parents discuss while watching their female children make their first contact with strangers and their assumptions about girlhood. Weary of my own child being constantly accosted with the peculiar label of “princess” before she’d hit the age of one, I wrote of the toxic nature of the word when not a day had passed that my child wasn’t labeled one by store clerks, shop owners and strangers on the street. We’ve examined Cinderella, The Disney Costume-Industrial Complex, and the happily-ever-after mythology from about every angle imaginable. But was anyone else taking on Cinderella in 1961? Is there any chance that riffing on the word “highness” with the word “lowness” was simply a clever play on words for its own sake? It doesn’t seem likely, does it? When you listen to the song, the growing desperation of the women’s pleas, clear in both their voices and the masterful orchestration, seems to speak volumes about how the deck was stacked for women, and how easy it was to pin hopes for a more fulfilling life on marriage, which, in the song, is expressly considered the only avenue of escape. There is no talk of love, even, only the trappings of an estate in New Rochelle, of finding meaning in decorating one’s house and getting dinner on the table. The more you listen to the song, the less it seems like parody and the more it seems like an urgent warning: "glorified unemployment" doesn't really sound glamorous. Like everyone else, I can only guess at Frank Loesser’s politics. But I do know that he told one female dancer never to stop writing, or working, or striving. And while she was at it, he told her, stay employed — and don’t marry that jerk who wants to take you out of a Broadway hit and away from your whole life. Every holiday season, I listen to “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” and I feel a tremendous warmth for the man who wrote it. He’s long gone, but the image of a lyricist and a dancer, huddled in a corner of a rehearsal studio in 1961, discussing their writing, their dreams, and their careers, remains: a haunting tableau from yesteryear. Based on the fond remembrances of my mother, I feel certain that the man who penned “The Brotherhood of Man” most certainly included women among the fraternity.
GOP enters the abyss: The entire party has fallen prey to bigotry and paranoid fantasy
For reasons hard to fathom, the Republicans seem to have made up their minds: they will divide, degrade and secede from the Union. They will do so with bullying, lies and manipulation, a willingness to say anything, no matter how daft or wrong. They will do so by spending unheard of sums to buy elections with the happy assistance of big business and wealthy patrons for whom the joys of gross income inequality are a comfortable fact of life. By gerrymandering and denying the vote to as many of the poor, the elderly, struggling low-paid workers, and people of color as they can. And by appealing to the basest impulses of human nature: anger, fear and bigotry. Turn on your TV or computer, pick up a paper or magazine and you can see and hear them baying at the moon. Donald Trump is just the most outrageous and bigmouthed of the frothing wolf pack of deniers and truth benders. As our friend and colleague Tom Engelhardt of TomDispatch writes, “There’s nothing, no matter how jingoistic or xenophobic, extreme or warlike that can’t be expressed in public and with pride by a Republican presidential candidate.” Like the pronouncement of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984, ignorance is strength, whether it’s casting paranoid fantasies about thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering 9/11, or warning about terrorists in refugees’ ragged clothing and Mexican rapists slithering across the border. Just four-and-a-half years ago, Washington mainstays Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein shocked the inside-the-Beltway establishment (especially the press, with its silent pact to speak no evil of wrongdoers lest they deny you an interview) when they published their book, It’s Even Worse than It Looks. The two esteemed political scientists wrote, “The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier – ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” In the years since, an ugly situation has only gotten increasingly dire, with right-wing radicals whipped into a frenzy by a Republican establishment that thought it could use their rage, only to find it running amok and beyond their control. In a recent interview with Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg View, Norman Ornstein said, “The future still looks pretty grim.” And Thomas Mann noted, “The burden is on the GOP because they are currently the major source of our political dysfunction. No happy talk about bipartisanship can obscure that reality. Unless other voices and movements arise within the Republican Party to changes its character and course, our dysfunctional politics will continue.” The fever is pandemic not only among the party’s presidential candidates but throughout the House and Senate right down to our state governments. Witness erstwhile GOP presidential candidate and current Wisconsin governor Scott Walker cutting off food stamps for the hungry and possibly bankrupting food pantries in his state just in time for Christmas – because many of those on the lowest rung of the ladder haven’t yet found a job. And here’s multimillionaire Bruce Rauner winning the governorship of Illinois after spending some $65 million — half of which came from himself and nine other individuals, families or the companies they control. Now he’s calling once again on his wealthy friends and allies around the country who, The New York Times reports, “are rallying behind Mr. Rauner’s agenda: to cut spending and overhaul the state’s pension system, impose term limits and weaken public employee unions”– even though a majority of ordinary citizens in Illinois are opposed. Meanwhile, with just a few weeks until they adjourn for the holidays, Republicans in the US Congress will try to cram in as much pettiness and vituperation as they can before they head back to their states and districts, no doubt to lead the home front in the fight against “the war on Christmas” launched this time every year by the Republicans’ propaganda arm (Fox News) and its shock troops on talk radio. Congressional Republicans have vowed to free Wall Street from oversight and accountability and to prevent children fleeing the Syrian inferno from coming ashore on US soil. And yes, they will once again be in full throat against gun control (despite the latest tragedy in San Bernardino, California). They’re on constant attack against the science of climate change, with the latest salvo two House bills passed December 1 that undermine Environmental Protection Agency rules (the president will veto them). And believe it or not, once again they’ll try to scuttle Obamacare, as in Kentucky where the self-financed, wealthy Republican governor-elect has vowed to cut loose hundreds of thousands of people from health insurance. Take a look at some of their other plans, including the riders congressional Republicans are contemplating for inclusion in the omnibus spending bill that must be passed by December 11. The whole mess is a Bad Santa’s list of loopholes benefiting High Finance, tax cuts for the rich, and budget cuts for everyone else, even as they drive the nation deeper into debt and disrepair. All of these sad examples are but symptoms of a deeper disease – the corruption and debasement of society, government and politics. It is a disease that eats away at the root and heart of what democracy is all about. Remember the opening phrase of the Preamble to the Constitution committing “We, the People” to the most remarkable compact of self-government ever – for the good of all? The Republicans are shredding that vision as they make a bonfire of the hopes that inspired it and, in the process, reduce the United States to a third-rate, sorry excuse for a nation. Why? For an analogy and an answer we have to go back to the slave-holding Democrats of the 1840s and 50s who were prepared to destroy the Union if necessary to protect and expand the brutal system of human slavery on which their economy and way of life were built. The extremism and polarization engendered made it impossible for politics peacefully to resolve the moral dilemma facing our country. If the Republicans – and the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln — had not championed and fought to preserve the Union and its government, the United States would have been no more. Now it is the Republicans who are willing to wreck the country to maintain the gross inequality that divides us – inequality which rewards the party leaders and their donors, just as slavery rewarded white supremacists. They would tear the Republic apart, rip to pieces its already fragile social compact, and reap the whirlwind of a failed experiment in self-government. For reasons hard to fathom, the Republicans seem to have made up their minds: they will divide, degrade and secede from the Union. They will do so with bullying, lies and manipulation, a willingness to say anything, no matter how daft or wrong. They will do so by spending unheard of sums to buy elections with the happy assistance of big business and wealthy patrons for whom the joys of gross income inequality are a comfortable fact of life. By gerrymandering and denying the vote to as many of the poor, the elderly, struggling low-paid workers, and people of color as they can. And by appealing to the basest impulses of human nature: anger, fear and bigotry. Turn on your TV or computer, pick up a paper or magazine and you can see and hear them baying at the moon. Donald Trump is just the most outrageous and bigmouthed of the frothing wolf pack of deniers and truth benders. As our friend and colleague Tom Engelhardt of TomDispatch writes, “There’s nothing, no matter how jingoistic or xenophobic, extreme or warlike that can’t be expressed in public and with pride by a Republican presidential candidate.” Like the pronouncement of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984, ignorance is strength, whether it’s casting paranoid fantasies about thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering 9/11, or warning about terrorists in refugees’ ragged clothing and Mexican rapists slithering across the border. Just four-and-a-half years ago, Washington mainstays Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein shocked the inside-the-Beltway establishment (especially the press, with its silent pact to speak no evil of wrongdoers lest they deny you an interview) when they published their book, It’s Even Worse than It Looks. The two esteemed political scientists wrote, “The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier – ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” In the years since, an ugly situation has only gotten increasingly dire, with right-wing radicals whipped into a frenzy by a Republican establishment that thought it could use their rage, only to find it running amok and beyond their control. In a recent interview with Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg View, Norman Ornstein said, “The future still looks pretty grim.” And Thomas Mann noted, “The burden is on the GOP because they are currently the major source of our political dysfunction. No happy talk about bipartisanship can obscure that reality. Unless other voices and movements arise within the Republican Party to changes its character and course, our dysfunctional politics will continue.” The fever is pandemic not only among the party’s presidential candidates but throughout the House and Senate right down to our state governments. Witness erstwhile GOP presidential candidate and current Wisconsin governor Scott Walker cutting off food stamps for the hungry and possibly bankrupting food pantries in his state just in time for Christmas – because many of those on the lowest rung of the ladder haven’t yet found a job. And here’s multimillionaire Bruce Rauner winning the governorship of Illinois after spending some $65 million — half of which came from himself and nine other individuals, families or the companies they control. Now he’s calling once again on his wealthy friends and allies around the country who, The New York Times reports, “are rallying behind Mr. Rauner’s agenda: to cut spending and overhaul the state’s pension system, impose term limits and weaken public employee unions”– even though a majority of ordinary citizens in Illinois are opposed. Meanwhile, with just a few weeks until they adjourn for the holidays, Republicans in the US Congress will try to cram in as much pettiness and vituperation as they can before they head back to their states and districts, no doubt to lead the home front in the fight against “the war on Christmas” launched this time every year by the Republicans’ propaganda arm (Fox News) and its shock troops on talk radio. Congressional Republicans have vowed to free Wall Street from oversight and accountability and to prevent children fleeing the Syrian inferno from coming ashore on US soil. And yes, they will once again be in full throat against gun control (despite the latest tragedy in San Bernardino, California). They’re on constant attack against the science of climate change, with the latest salvo two House bills passed December 1 that undermine Environmental Protection Agency rules (the president will veto them). And believe it or not, once again they’ll try to scuttle Obamacare, as in Kentucky where the self-financed, wealthy Republican governor-elect has vowed to cut loose hundreds of thousands of people from health insurance. Take a look at some of their other plans, including the riders congressional Republicans are contemplating for inclusion in the omnibus spending bill that must be passed by December 11. The whole mess is a Bad Santa’s list of loopholes benefiting High Finance, tax cuts for the rich, and budget cuts for everyone else, even as they drive the nation deeper into debt and disrepair. All of these sad examples are but symptoms of a deeper disease – the corruption and debasement of society, government and politics. It is a disease that eats away at the root and heart of what democracy is all about. Remember the opening phrase of the Preamble to the Constitution committing “We, the People” to the most remarkable compact of self-government ever – for the good of all? The Republicans are shredding that vision as they make a bonfire of the hopes that inspired it and, in the process, reduce the United States to a third-rate, sorry excuse for a nation. Why? For an analogy and an answer we have to go back to the slave-holding Democrats of the 1840s and 50s who were prepared to destroy the Union if necessary to protect and expand the brutal system of human slavery on which their economy and way of life were built. The extremism and polarization engendered made it impossible for politics peacefully to resolve the moral dilemma facing our country. If the Republicans – and the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln — had not championed and fought to preserve the Union and its government, the United States would have been no more. Now it is the Republicans who are willing to wreck the country to maintain the gross inequality that divides us – inequality which rewards the party leaders and their donors, just as slavery rewarded white supremacists. They would tear the Republic apart, rip to pieces its already fragile social compact, and reap the whirlwind of a failed experiment in self-government.
