Noodling

Are You A Political Porno Addict?

I was wondering how one might accurately describe the person and work of Rush Limbaugh. Muckraker? Yellow journalism? Yes, I think so. Character assassin? Yes. Rabblerouser? for sure. Political hatchet man? Yes, that's obvious.

Then, thinking about what he does in aggregate, the bigger picture, I thought, It's like pornography, kind of. Yes, it meets the definition I think of as pornography, actually meets it better than sexual pornography.

It denigrates the people it holds up to view. It distorts and dirties the purposes of real, honest discourse and discussion and news. It's tawdry, and it creates victims, all in the name of "entertainment."

So, what does that make the people who indulge in their daily fix of Rush, people who think pornography indulgence is a major bad thing to do. Is it hypocritical of them to rail against sexual pornography viewers while they indulge in the political form of something very like it?

Do they watch or listen to Rush for the rush it gives them? Or are they just listening/viewing for the information, like people who read Playboy magazine for the articles?

Why The Attacks On Women?

Notice something strange about the Republican super conservatives' focus during their campaign? Notice that the issues are phony?

Instead of real issues there is targeting of a particular group of people, namely women. This targeting of a group of people tag teams with targeting their opponents with hugely expensive dirty attack ads.

Why?

One of my sons pointed out to me that the Republicans are lacking a real issue to use against President Obama in the Fall election. Hoping to use the recession, blaming him for it, they blocked his every effort to gain co-operation from a Republican dominated Congress.

But, the economy is relentlessly improving. So the Republican candidates have to come up with something else. That something else is to use distraction techniques: dirty politics, accusing scapegoats, inflaming old animosities, and targeting a minority group.

They use what I call The Falkland Islands Distraction Ploy. President Reagan used the Grenada micro mini war to accomplish the same thing.

Historically, looking for a good scapegoat has always been an effective distraction and relieving the tension technique. During the plague years that held Europe hostage during the Middle Ages nobody knew that the Black Death plague was caused by bacteria carried by fleas that made their homes on rats.

Scapegoats, Jews in this case, were accused of poisoning wells, and thus causing the plague. The witchcraft craze in Europe brought about the deaths of thousands of innocent women and men, particularly women. At that time there was an excess of females in the population and unmarried women were a financial burden on their families. Rich women's property could be taken from them if they were tried and convicted of witchcraft (really easy convictions).

Why choose women for the diversionary scapegoating attacks? Because it is obvious that the conservative Republican base, hyper right wing conservative religious groups, are male dominant and female repressive.

If you doubt that is so, read their writings, listen to their speeches, sermons, and TV and radio programs, read their books. I know these groups from having been inside. I went to a fundamentalist Christian college, sat in their pews, married into a fundamentalist Christian family, was a pastor's wife in a fundamentalist church.

From this vantage point I want to warn my fellow female voters: Believe them when they seem to be saying they don't really like women that much. They don't. If they did, they wouldn't repress and misuse them the way they do. They look at women as substandard human beings, and many of them want us to be silent, strictly obedient to the dominant males in the group, pregnant, and powerless.

Religion and politics don't mix well. Each religious group believes God is guiding them as they attempt to impose their own beliefs and practices on everyone else.

Without political power religious groups must persuade in order to affect people's behavior. With political power, they can force it.

Religion is as full of egotistic, domination obsessed individuals as politics is. Government needs to be free of interference and control by any religious group. Our country's founders knew what they were doing when they established this country with strict separation of church and state.

If we do not take action to retain the rights and protections our foremothers won for us we will lose them. Don't think it cannot happen here. It can. If you value your rights to your own body, your own privacy, and equal protection and opportunity under the law, you must take action.

Demonstrate, write letters to the editors, blog, make phone calls, put pressure on your government representatives. Object to attacks on individual women, to disparagement of them and of women as a group, and to threats against women's present rights.

Contribute to and vote for candidates who support women. And work, work, work to defeat candidates and groups who hold us in derision and aim to push us back into the days of coat hanger abortions, poor medical care, and endless pregnancies.

New Blog: Shining A Light On Patriarchy and "Complementarianism"

I've created another blog. Yes, I know, there are a lot of them. And I wasn't going to do it, but I feel compelled to, so I did. It's about patriarchy, heirarchicalism, and "complementarianism," those female destroying and female crippling beliefs that provide a fertile ground for the trash crop of abuse.

I have no desire to try to change the minds of patriarchicalists, nor any of the others who believe and teach that females aren't to be allowed equal access to opportunity. I don't mind if they believe something like that.

What I do mind is for both males and females to be victimized by those beliefs through ignorance. I also mind people outside those groups being victimized by the practices of patirarchicalists and other hierarchalists.

It has always bothered me to see good people denied what should be rightfully theirs, whether it's fairness in paying taxes, insurance costs, educational opportunity, or the right to protect their own bodies and souls from invasion and abuse.

It bothered me when, as a student in a Fundamentalist college, I watched my bright female fellow students marry boys who were not as bright as they were and then hand over their own decision making and freedom of choice to those boys because they'd been taught God required it.  It bothers me to know how doing that abbreviated and reduced their opportunities to use the abilities God gave them.

And, it bothered me when someone on an email discussion list posted a link to a blog like the Bayly Blog, and I went there and read posts and comments that support a man's supposed right to restrict the women in his life in ways that will deny them an education, freedom of choice, and could deny them their health and life.

So, I thought, someone needs to create a place online to gather information and comment about groups and individuals who use religion to batter women and restrict their lives. Someone should do this, but who? Looks like it's me.

It's at http://www.tellville.com

The Mood Of The Country/Elections

I watched the first debate between gubernatorial candidates in my State. It featured the incumbent, a savvy, attractive, articulate female person, and her opponent, a man who has only one thing going for him, a huge pile of money to spend.

The last time I read how much he'd already spent on the campaign it was up to $19,000,000, and that was several weeks ago. The guy is so obviously not Governor material. But, he has all that money, and has not only spent it like it was Gatorade, but for years and years he has been feedbagging prominent Republican causes and candidates who now have to reciprocate and campaign for him, or at least give him some good blurbs for his ads. It must gag some of them to do it, he is so obviously not an able candidate.

I'd like to think he can't be elected on the strength of money alone. But, I'm not so naive as I used to be. I've learned to never overestimate the voting public, nor underestimate what can go on behind the scenes to derail the vote.

Ms. Gov seems to be doing a good job, and I like the fact that she's not only female, but capable and competent, speaks clearly and logically, and I'm sure can turn up the burners in future debates way past his comfort level.

Wanting to do my part to help keep the Gov in office I volunteered to be a campaign helper. I visited her web site and found a place to enter my name, email address, etc. While I was there I thought I'd order a Tshirt to support my candidate. The site was wonky, and I couldn't get from here to Tshirt, so gave up and waited to see if I'd actually get a return email about my volunteering.

It took a long time,  but I finally did get a response. What would I like to do, they wanted to know. I said I'd write Letters to the Editor, and hand out literature door to door. OK, they said,  write a letter every week to the editor of a town some thirty miles away, and encolsed a sample letter that I could use.

But, I don't subscribe to that paper or live in that town, and the letter they sent me was not my kind of thing, it was a bit nasty, and I didn't want to do that. I don't live there, it seemed like false pretenses to me. I didn't write any letters.

Then there was the door to door thing. I was about to do it, and then remembered the sample letter I'd been sent to copy and mail. Wait a minute, I thought, I don't know what kind of literature they will give me to hand out. Is it going to be nasty too? So, I didn't go.

But, maybe there is still the Tshirt route. I'll check the Gov's site again. And, what might be available elsewhere? I went to CafePress.com, the big "create your own product" site, and did a search on "politics." Wow!

The search returned a list, complete with phtos of the items, for 120,000 designs on 2,070,000 products. Not all for my Gov, of course, but there may be some in there. I'm finding, however, surfing around among the designs, that what citizens are willing to wear on their chests and put on their car bumpers is a great political commentary on the mood of the country.

Some samples:

   

Ruth Tucker's Story

Dr. Ruth Tucker is a long time friend. She contacted me not long ago and asked for assistance in creating a special blog site. I'm bloggy, she wasn't. She wanted a place to tell her story, what had been happening to her at work that forced her to leave her treasured position as the first full time female professor at Calvin Theological Seminary in its 130 year history.

I remember when she was hired, and how happy she was, exhilarated at the opportunity. And, how she enjoyed being a part of the faculty, and interacting and engaging in good natured discussion with fellow faculty members.

But, things changed at Calvin Seminary. A new President came on board and a new climate emerged, one that was not so friendly toward the lone woman on the faculty.

She told me about her shock and horror at being informed in a routine employee evaluation session that her employment would be terminated in one year. She'd done a good job, had gotten good reviews previously, knew her students valued her teaching. She had been promised at hiring, in writing, a tenure track, full professor position in three years if all went well. What had happened?

Her efforts to find out what was behind the shocking news led to discoveries of false reports, new charges against her of "ungodliness" (which was unspecified, and she was not permitted to know what the supposed ungodliness consisted of), and requirement that she attend a series of humiliating "renewal" sessions over several months time.

I tried to persuade her to consult an attorney at this point, remembering all too well what happened to my own husband when he was fired in a most dirty and unjust manner from Moody Bible Institute over 25 years ago.

But, Ruth did not want to bring an attorney into the situation, fearing the seminary administration would find out and take it as an affront, and think she was taking an adversarial position in the matter. I then tried to persuade her to have a friend accompany her, or even insist on a tape recorder at the "renewal" sessions she was forced to endure.

She hoped, and believed, that if she went to the renewal sessions for the several months she was told to attend that she'd be put back on tenure track, and everything would be OK. I did not think so. But, and I'm so glad she did, she made copies of all documents and email messages, and put them in safe keeping. As it turned out, she would need them.

Her compelling and revealing story about what transpired during the years she tried to keep her job, get redress, bring charges against her out into the open, and finally leave is on her new blog, "My Calvin Seminary Story." It was launched on Labor Day and has had thousands of page views since.

I salute her for her courage and refusal to keep silent, as she was warned to do, and for her respectful and straightforward telling of what happened.

Please go there and read it. For a TV interview with Ruth, including a video clip, click here.

The kind of victimization Ruth experienced happens more frequently than is common knowledge. When my husband was fired from Moody Bible Institute many people contacted us to tell us their own similar stories. Such victimization is carried out in secret and denied by the perpetrators, who often resort to attempts at character assassination of the victims to try to make them less believable and less willing to tell what has been done to them.

I'm hoping such cases can get wide public notice and media attention so that those who are inclined to victimize will be less willing to do so, and people who have been victimized will see the value in going public with their own experiences.

Why We Don't Need A Constitutional Marriage Amendment

I've written a post on the FemSpeak blog on  why I think the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage is not a good idea. To read it click here.

No More Ratzinger, Benedict Now

If my name were Rat Zinger I'd want to change it to Benedict too. Think how long he's had to wait for the chance, poor man.

But, is he a good choice? It all depends. To short sighted fundamentalist Protestants he looks good, but he's going to go after them like rats he wants to zing out of their influence on American Catholics.

Republicans may think he will help them in their next election bid, as he may. But, will that be overkill for a population tiring of concessions to the religious Far Right, and not even under-the-table financial rewards for the "faith based initiatives" giveaway. There's a reason for separation of church and state in the USA, it's supposed to prevent a billion dollars going into the hands of religious leaders who will lobby in the pulpit and on TV for the presidential candidate who gave them the money and, they hope, will do it again if they help elect him.

Unfortunately, Benedict isn't likely to be beneficial for women and their starving over produced offspring, nor to those who would like something more substantial than the good will of their wayward husbands to protect them from AIDS/HIV.

So, all in all, I think he's not a good deal for most people.

On the other hand, if you don't like the Catholic church, then he's probably a good thing, because he's bound to take it further down the road of decline it has been on for some time. As I saw Benedict make his appearance on the balcony for the first time as Pope, with all the people stretched out before him I was struck by how far the Roman church has come from its origins, and how poorly Jesus would fit in. And, then I realized that I was looking at an ancient pageant and ritual, the presentation of a new Roman Emperor.

The world has moved on out of the Ancient world and Middle Ages, but the papacy hasn't. We all thought it was off to a great catch up era when John 23 came on the scene. But, no, it's backwards again, to the past. Maybe next time.

Meanwhile, women and children will die from hunger and poverty and HIV/AIDS because mothers have to produce more children than they can feed and care for, and must have unprotected sex, because to limit conception by using a condom is sin.

I wonder which is the greatest sin, using condoms, being a hidebound, stuck in the past Pope, or electing another one.

Election Journal: Market on Your Weakest Point

What are George Bush’s weakest points? You’ll notice that that’s precisely where he’s trying to discredit his opponent.

For example,

1. Military service: Both Bush and his Vice President avoided going to Vietnam. Bush’s military record is not very pretty. It’s obvious that Kerry has a lot of superior firing power in that department. He didn’t have to go, but he chose to go to Vietnam. He was awarded medals, which those who closest to him there say he deserved, as do the natives who witnessed the action.

So, Bush and his supporters have worked to try to discredit Kerry militarily. They haven’t succeeded, but they’ve done enough to distract from the real issues and cast doubt about Kerry in the minds of those who are susceptible to being influenced by innuendo and accusation.

And, why is Kerry’s military record important? Well, they say it’s because it reveals his character, inferring that it’s not really so good as it seems. The logical question would be, I’d think, what does Bush’s military record say about his character? Bush supporters want to dismiss his military actions, and lack thereof, saying, it’s old news, and has been discredited long ago. Sort of a “the past is important for my opponent, but not for me.”

If the past is important in determining character, then what about the more distant past of both men? Bush’s past doesn’t stack up well at all against Kerry’s, not at any point, and cumulatively it’s night and day contrast.

2. Bravery and leadership: September 11 didn’t reveal a particularly brave or leaderly President. So, Kerry is accused of faking his wounds in Vietnam and of not actually doing what he claimed he did. But, his swift boat crew and the observing natives said he did do the brave things he got the medals for.

3. Safety for American citizens: Neither Bush nor Kerry can keep Americans safe. But, we have evidence of a lack of competence in Bush’s performance so far, as in, getting us into an unnecessary Iraq war that was ill prepared for and he was advised against by his military advisors, not sending enough troops, not guarding the country’s assets after invasion, alienating its citizenry, and not securing its borders. This has not made me feel safer.

Could Kerry do better? I’m counting on that being easy to do. Can he succeed in making us safe? No, but he can help. He knows what isn’t being done, and he has a good chance of defusing some of the animosity Bush has created for us in Iraq and around the world. Kerry has a record of competency in government, and he’s more experienced in international relations.

Look for more examples, you’ll find them, attempts to use offense as the best defense against Bush’s shortcomings.

Election Journal: False Issue: Abortion

Someone I know told me an acquaintance said he’d like to vote for Kerry, but he can’t because his priest said it was wrong to do so because Kerry wasn’t “pro life.” I’ve also seen online news reports that there is an effort underway to attempt to have Kerry excommunicated from the Catholic church because he says he believes that we need to have freedom of choice, that one group’s beliefs should not be legally forced on everyone else.

The fear is, among those who would make abortion an illegal act, that being pro-choice promotes abortion itself. They have been told continually that the solution to abortion is to make it illegal. Terrific amounts of effort and money have been expended in the attempt to accomplish that.

But, making abortion illegal will never stop the practice of abortion. Making it illegal will be even less effective in stopping it than making recreational drugs illegal has stopped the flow of drugs, less effective than making prostitution illegal has stamped that out, and less effective than making alcoholic beverages illegal during the Prohibition era stopped the consumption of liquor.

Making abortion illegal will simply put it back in the hands of dangerous abortionists and into desperate attempts at self-abortion like the ones that used to take the lives and health of so many women. Women will not stop having abortions simply because it's illegal. That never stopped them before, it's not going to stop them now.

The way to reduce abortion to a very small amount, is to make it unnecessary. And that is a job big enough for the whole society to undertake. I’ve started a blog on the subject, my own effort in that direction. I invite everyone who wants to work toward that cause to join with me.

But, for preachers and priests to pressure their constituents to vote against a plainly more capable and competent candidate solely because he is not willing to promote a law to deny all women abortions is a shame and a misuse of their privileged position. It’s reducing an important choice, who will be the President of the United States of America for the next four years, to a knee jerk response, and a futile one at that.

Vote smart. Don’t make your choice with your knee, use your head.

Election Journal: Whose Candidate Is God’s Choice?

Religious leaders pushing for Bush with all their might have a vested interest. It’s about power and it’s about money, not so much about God or right and wrong answers.

The power thing is pretty simple. Religious leaders like to win. Being a minister is supposed to be about service, but often it’s more about power. People who go into the ministry are often power hungry people. They want to tell others what to do, how to do it, and are happy to manage the lives of others. They like claiming God as backup to their demands, harangues, and edicts. Sometimes they forget they aren’t God themselves.

So, they love it when they have enough leverage to elect a President, or make him/her do their bidding. George Bush trades on the knowledge of what makes the ministerial pressurizers tick. He gives them what they want, and they give him what he wants: votes.

To do this, they have to create urgency and fear among their adherents and congregations. They have to have an alarm bell ringing issue on a regular basis.

A friend of mine, who was co-author of a university textbook on marketing and taught marketing at a well known Evangelical graduate school told me that he knew exactly how to create a lucrative broadcast ministry. He said that they had researched it thoroughly and had it down to a science, that they could take anyone and make them a “ministry” success in a few months.

One of the essentials, he said, for a successful broadcast ministry (successful meaning bringing in lots of money) was the absolute necessity of having at least two emergencies per year. That is, the ministry had to have an alarming situation that needed action (including a cash contribution) from viewers every six months. If a real need wasn’t available, one had to be manufactured.

If you observe these broadcast ministries for awhile, and it won’t take long, you’ll notice that almost all of them play the game this way. They are in financial trouble and might lose their license if the viewers don’t come up with the money, or their transmitter blew over in a storm, or the Devil is after them and people are accusing them of wrongdoing, or some other emergency. And, of course, they are going to need buckets full of money to remedy it.

Conveniently, political action is always there as a possible substitute for a real need. And that is where George Bush comes in. He undoubtedly knows how the ministries operate. If they haven’t told him, he or someone working for him has figured it out. Partnership with politicians is a ready and fertile field of opportunity for the broadcasters to satisfy their ever expanding desires for cash, and for the politician who knows the game to get votes.

It works this way: The broadcaster uses a news story or “investigative report” to rile the troops by making dire predictions of societal or religious disaster if certain actions are not taken. For example, if homosexuals want equal human rights, this is fodder for insisting that the destruction of the family is imminent. Save the family! is the cry, and to do that the cash must come in to support the effort, and a letter writing campaign to the appropriate politicians is launched. The letters are to prove to the politician that the broadcaster has clout and had better be consulted and catered to. The cash is so the broadcaster will have more money.

The more letters that come in, the more the politicians give at least lip service to whatever cause the broadcaster is pushing. And when voting time comes around, there’s a partnership between the politician and the broadcaster. The broadcasters are consulted and included in meetings, not because they have wise counsel, but because the politicians are afraid not to include them.

The broadcaster who has been admitted into the inner circle of the politician then defends the candidate against all critics. As in, Pat Robertson saying that even though Bush has made mistakes, he’s sure he will win, in fact God told Robertson that he would. And the reason is that God’s blessing is upon him, whatever that means, because Bush is a praying man.

Of course, we don’t know whether Kerry is an even more fervent and frequent praying man, because he, perhaps heeding the biblical instruction to pray in secret and not noise it about that one has been doing it, doesn’t tell us about all his praying.

Hurricane Theology :)