I spent the entire Bush years pissed off. Too many forces were at work seeking to deprive me, and the people I love, of basic civil rights. In recent articles, this month in Harper's, Thomas Frank, and again, Thursday, by Tana Ganeva in Salon, cultural observers have sought to assure folks like me that religion is on the wane and that the culture wars that accompanied this rise are also fading.
Forgive me if I’m not convinced.
Rich based his assertions on several executive pronouncements made by President Obama. Frank says that it's the failure of a mass movement to support the “Summer of Mercy 2.0” that serves as proof that economic issues have slain cultural issues. After all, only 625 protesters showed up for the Summer’s major event. And last week, Tana Ganeva pointed to several markers of religious decline in America as evidence that we may soon see the divisive issues—such as opposition to gay marriage—go the way of the Tasmanian Tiger.
While it is true that President Obama reinstated federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as one of his first acts of office, the issue is far from dead. By September, 2010, one court had stayed federal funding. This spring, an appeals court overturned the stay, but now, a massive court fight has been organized by those who see embryonic stem cell research as license to kill embryos.
A scan of headlines on REALITY CHECK like opening an atlas of anti-abortion, anti-woman bills working their way through state legislatures. Whether it’s the actual de-funding of Planned Parenthood, or the impending declaration that an embryo is a person, reproductive rights remain under attack. And, the attacks are winning.
Are reproductive rights more safe under Obama? I think not.
For example, if the culture wars are dead or dying, answer me this:
If I am a lesbian whose partner is ill and I cannot get her health benefits because the company I work for does not consider same-sex relationships to be marriages, how does that become "culture" rather than crucial?
If I am a 15-year old who finds myself pregnant in South Dakota, and the closest place I can get an abortion is hundreds of miles away, and every nearby state has a parental notification law, and my mother will beat me and throw me into the street if she finds out I'm pregnant, is this a culture war, or is my life at stake?
If I have Parkinson's, and I've watched my motor skills deteriorate over the past eight years because my doctors were hamstrung in their abilities to look for a cure, and now I'll probably die before the new embryonic stem-cell lines can start looking for an improvement for me, am I part of a culture war? Or was this life or death for me?
If I'm a gay teenager in Wyoming who is beaten within an inch of my life, but I live in a state that doesn't recognize hate crimes, and so this is treated like a Saturday night bar fight and the other guy gets a slap on the wrist, is that a culture war? Or is it life and death?
Even as Rich and Frank proclaim that on a national level, we're all done with this, I can News Google search issues like abortion or gay rights or whatever else you want to relegate to the culture war category, and I see its effects on real people.
Yes. People are taking a beating economically, but they have not suddenly forgotten that the immoral live among them and must be legislated against. In fact, as someone who used to be an historian, I worry that these issues will cause people to be scapegoated, not accepted, as the economic pie is portrayed as getting smaller.
Sometimes, I am stunned by what I see as pundit myopia. Perhaps in the neighborhoods in which they live, social issues appear to have lost their power. Yesterday, watching the pundits work themselves into a lather about how they can't believe that there are still places in this country where ranches can be called names that are racially derogatory, I shook my head. Of course, racism, sexism, homophobia are still present. But you have to be conscious to notice their signs from the tinted windows of the town car that ferries you from your office to your home. Those of us out "here" not only see it, we hear it and feel it.
Go ahead: ask a woman, person of color, or gay person whether the culture wars are over; whether religion has less of an impact on society, and I suspect you’ll hear a whole different answer. Just as it is possible, as the president once said, for him to walk and chew gum at the same time, so is it possible for there to be an economic crisis and a culture war occurring simultaneously. The morals police don’t just operate during times of financial prosperity. If anything, they are able to be more stealthy, get more things passed through legislatures, precisely because everyone else is distracted by the crashing economy on the horizon.
Illustration of the now extinct Tasmanian Tiger taken from The Discovery Channel
A different version of this post was blogged at Does This Make Sense?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
Donald Manns
The Flylooper
Vivian Henoch
Lydieth A
Sean Murphy
Salon.com
Comments
Besides, what is a culture war when it's at home? Can you even separate the cultural from the economic? I suspect that like in many other cases (climate change, not global warming; partial birth, not intact D&C; illegal aliens, not undocumented immigrants), the right has chosen the language that we all use to describe the phenomenon of conflict based on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. It sounds less dire to say that people are disagreeing about lifestyles or values, and lets us ignore that those conflicts nearly always leave the minorities in dire economic straits.
You're very good with thoughts and expressing them FLW, as usual. Great piece :).
Rated for the old bait and switch.
The same people who would block stem cell research have absolutely no problem with IVF conception of their very own children. (What adopt? No, I have to make my kids in my image and likeness with my very own DNA...) When they are done reproducing, those very same people do what with the leftover fertilized embryos? They destroy them. Those very same people roll the dice with embryos they deem to be persons, and if a pregnancy doesn't "stick," they just throw their hands in the air and declare it God's will.
I wish they'd cut the histrionic crap and view their hypocrisy for what it really is.
(Whoa! Let me just step down frrom my little soapbox, carefully. FLW, you have obviously pushed a button with me.)
Maybe part of the "war" is that some people don't want to pay for your side's soldiers.
And some of those people who aren't keen on PP, by the way, must be anti-themselves, for they are women. Just think, women who, ah, think differently than the Left wants them too. Very disconcerting.
So, de-funding PP, which provides breast exams, pelvic exams, Pap smears, and other cancer screenings, is worth defunding--why? Because you think medical offices should only be able to offer the services that you think proper? If other medical clinics were defunded--say, that provided care to newborns, then you'd be okay with that, too? After all, if the poor are going to have children, they should be able to afford to care for them. Otherwise, let them die. Isn't that what you're saying to women who can't afford the medical services at doctors' offices because they don't have insurance?
And remember that a heck of a lot of those religious folk led the way in the Civil Rights battles of both the 19th century and the 20th. They will not be right on everything, but they are surely not all moral idiots either.
And there are non-religious arguments against hate crime legislation. Some are compelling for moral (i.e., don't legislate how people think and also don't raise some persons to a higher value than others) reasons that have more to do with philosophical issues than specific religious ones.
PP is not some holy organization. Why should it get my tax money? If I want to send them money - and maybe I do - I will. I may, however, choose to send my money to an organization that does all of the good things you mention that I admire more than PP. All I'm saying is that PP is not being "defunded". That is the truth . People are trying to stop the government funding.
Like I said, if y'all feel that strongly, get out your checkbooks.
That's all I'm saying. I'm sure there are tons of good medical clinics that would love to get government funding, but they don't. PP has to learn to fund itself - which it does by abortion to some extent - and the rest of you can write a check. This is not a difficult thing to comprehend.
If the "soldier" metaphor is insulting in some way, well, sorry, but I was just going with the "war", "battle", stuff. It might not have been creative as hell, but it was just a way of expressing something.
Why should I fund churches? They don't pay taxes, and yet they use community services: roads, infrastructure, etc. If a church is on fire, you expect my tax dollars to pay for the fire engine that comes to put the fire out. See? I also don't like my government tax dollars funding illegal wars, but part of being a culture, of being in a society, is paying for shit you don't like.
Oh, and BJ--I'd be careful about making fun of people's screen names.
And of course you shouldn't fund churches. I don't suspect you do unless you're giving in the collection plate and that is voluntary. No, they are tax exempt, but that is not the same as funding them. Sorry, but there is a difference.
I am glad you are free not to fund them and I certainly would not want people to be forced to pay for the upkeep or other expenses of churches or synagogues or mosques or whatever other places of worship one could think of. I'd like to be free of funding PP which is a private organization and can fun itself, as actually, churches do. I also suspect PP has all of the tax exemptions they can take as well and that is life.
Sorry about the shortening of your name. I honestly never considered that it would or could be offensive. And I am not writing in a hostile way. I just think PP should take care of its own funding.
Catch you later. Thanks for the post.
And as for the church thing - as a taxpayer, I do too fund churches and against my will. When churches don't pay taxes, taxes are higher for everyone else. Perhaps I don't pay a great deal more to make up for all the church properties and clerics who are tax-free, but it's the principle of the thing.
But, as you say, Lorraine (your screen name is long, but you give your real name, which is barely longer than "finger"), when we live in a society we gotta put up with and even pay for some things we're not entirely in favour of.
Now I feel better.
I have no problem with honest disagreements. Apologize if I got too huffy. Thanks.
I would disagree with you on the church thing. IF that church is on a public street, my tax dollars are funding it. The fact that the church doesn't pay taxes, as Myriad says, means my taxes are higher in order to make up for the shortfall.
And I would also disagree that PP is not only about abortion. In fact, if people would get out of the way and let it do its job, the need for abortion would diminish.
There are plenty of clinics that get Medicaid/Medicare funds. Why single out PP?
Great post and dead on.
- neilpaul
What? How are the unemployed making mischief for the better? How about for the worse?
Rated.
That is what creates the vacuum that allows the "structuralists" to occur. You know who I mean: the enforcers and authoritarians--the patriarchials.
It doesn't matter what the "faith" is, only that it lays it all out and the believer doesn't have to consult their own conscience. The mass rules. It's a fuck of a lot easier than thinking for oneself.
The "pundits" are peripheral unless they are in the life of the seeker, and give them the hope their own lives have not given them. Are you following me?
It is important to at least know how the process works, that doesn't mean it will change, but the more who understand it the better.
Hello? Hello? I write in English but sometimes I wonder if there is anybody left who still understands the language.
So, tell me, why do they not qualify for public funding?
I get really irritated by the reasoning "Well I don't have kids, so why should I have to pay for schools?"
I personally don't have any relatives in prison, or enlisted in the military so why should I have to pay for prisons and wars?
I help pay for schools because when I was in school, people who never knew me or benefitted directly from my education paid for my High School. An educated workforce is necessary for prosperity in any modern nation. A good school in your neighborhood boosts your property value should you ever decide to sell. The unrelated to you kids you help educate stand a better chance of not being impoverished in the future. (Although that seems less and less of a guarantee.)
Seems to me that Planned Parenthood, both the concept and the organization, really beat the UN-planned variety. Funny and old fashioned though I am, I do think low-income women deserve the dignity of health and reproductive care, and a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies of children they can't afford to raise.
Excellent post, FLW. rated
They also often make use of local city/county playgrounds, fairgrounds, etc for many of their fund raising events (or at least the churches around here do and so far as I'm aware they're not charged for that use) and these venues are also supported by tax payer dollars. They are a part of American society (read 'culture') and reap the same benefits from society that the tax payers do - without paying their fair share of those taxes. That's just simple fact.
As for PP, as far as I can determine from the various arguments being bandied about, abortion *is* at the center of the controversy, and only because PP is not pro or con, it's simply a medical service they happen to provide (not with tax payer dollars). *All* of the other services they provide that have been mentioned here are rarely mentioned when defunding comes up.
Can anyone honestly have any real question as to why Planned Parenthood has been singled out? They're not 'fundamentally fine-tuned', and so are perceived as a threat to 'family values' because they 'send the wrong message'.
(Yes, I love that quote key ;).
I, for one, know that there is a long way to go before we cease the cultural wars going on. I get to see some of them every day even.
Again, thank you.
And I didn't know that the writer of this blog would find it okay to be called her real name. I don't even know her.
No, you are not funding that church if it is on a public street. You are funding the street and ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT CHURCH are as well. The church is funding itself. Your tax money is not paying for ONE THING THAT CHURCH HAS or DOES. Not one. And, as said, the road is paid for by the government's money, but so is a road on which a tax-exempt charity's building is located.
I don't have as great a problem with them getting medicaid money, but they should get not a nickel more than any other clinic and it is only to be used as directed. All extra funding should be stopped. They are a private organization and using medicaid money to pay for services to those in need is one thing, but getting special treatment is another. And, by the way, I have no kudos to give them as to birth control services, given their "ads" to teens and their values. Get out your checkbooks.
I also think any organization founded by someone in sympathy to the Klan and wanting to wipe out blacks should be out of bounds, but that's just me.
If disagreement freaks you out so, then just don't comment.
I've said nothing rude to you.
And about churches using parks for fund-raising. If y'all don't like that, petition your local authorities. But please note, churches are not being FUNDED by your tax dollars. That's all I say about PP.
Have any of you written a check to them yet? I'll bet not one of you, in the time you've spent on this blog, have gotten out a checkbook and written to poor PP.
You know who supports the churches, the members.
You ain't looking too good:::::
See folks, it's a values war. I hope our side wins.
I understand that you are a follower of Pastor Childress. Given that he provides NO citations for his assertions, I'm assuming that like many in the movement, he's making stuff up to back up his assertions. How much money did you send to his organization since you have assumed his arguments?
Do you know what critical thinking is? Or do you swallow whole cloth the crap you read on the Internet?
Feel free to continue to hijack this thread. I've got nothing left to say to you. Having figured out that you are incapable of separating fact from fiction, to continue to engage you further would be a waste of my time.
Your behavior is, like most wing-nuts, consistently passive aggressive with utter reliance on bait and switch tactics. Typical wing-nut, accuse someone else of your own offense, again, hilarious but very, very sad.
As to rude- again, like most wing-nuts you are exceptionally rude with your constant multiple, multiple comment posting: FYI, this breaks every rule of Netiquette, which you obviously have no familiarity with, and, in this, you actually fall into the trap of Right Wingers in general, being extremely rude and offensive WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IT! Fascinating, as Sen. McQuack who picked on of you and will never live it down, likes to say.
I see you've got ol' Barbara Joanne here threadjacking your post. Babs is quaint, isn't she? ;-)
I have never followed this pastor nor, by the way, do I know who he is.
And the whole hijacking thing is just a way to say shut up I suspect.
All the best to you. I don't hate you. I'm not being rude to you and, as stated, YOU have addressed things to ME. When that happens, I figure I'm expected to respond.
Good luck.
so I don't see how it was putting words in your mouth when I accused you of hatred and lack of politeness.
Bye guys. And BTW only the author had the strength to debate. The rest of you? Not too impressive but this is an issue on which good people can disagree.
Continue the name-calling Oahusurfer. It works to strengthen, in a sense, my side.
This is but one of many reasons, I will not allow you to post on my blog. If you want to talk to your delusional self, do so elsewhere.
This woman is truly a delusional harridan.
As for the rest of it, no, it's still dead in the water until people can see and agree what the real heart of each matter truly is and stop choking on the smoke screens. It's hard to believe The Bush family sat on the board of Planned Parenthood. Supported it. Super hard to believe.
I don't think you understand adoption. The number of couples hoping to adopt a healthy baby far, far outnumber the healthy babies.
If you adopt an older child, you have to deal with the child's issues from their birth family. One of my friends adopted a 3 yo with a drug addicted mother. The girl loved her birth mother. The birth mother loved the girl. The adoptive parents had to deal with the girl's grief and anger at losing her birth mother. Keeping a relationship with the birth mother meant the girl was exposed to the birth mother's anger and empty promises.
Add to that, the 'best' way to adopt is to foster a kid first, which means the birth parents could succeed in getting the child back. Talk about heartbreak. International adoptions are rife with problems.
The fact is, it's not easy to adopt. It's a very hard road and many infertile couples have already been down a hard road. Not all decisions to go to IVF are about having a child in your image. It's about getting a healthy child with a good chance of happiness.
Are reproductive rights more safe under Obama? I think not. …
…almost insures that the battle will be much more drawn out than it has to be.
My guess: Obama will be gone after the 2012 election…and the House will be more Republican and more conservative than ever—with some possibility that the Senate will be in conservative Republican hands also.
When that happens, I hope you reflect back on what you wrote here!
Fact is, I hope you start thinking more clearly about it before the 2012 election!
Brace Yourself folks -- Only another ~year to go before he is forced to adopt new slogans.
The COCkroach infestation continues.
Glad to know you weren't dumping on me.
I suggested one Larry Elder article, I believe. I don't get my "talking points" from him and I am not into Rand either.
MarkinJapan - you posted a post about ME, even asked ME to answer a question, but then deleted my responses. Very odd behavior, but it is your blog. Still, usually, when people ask questions they do expect to receive a reply and when they post accusations about a specific person and ask for replies and then delete most of the replies, I don't take them too seriously as, well as serious debater.
Erudite? Thank you. (Although I am sorry to say I am forced to consider the source.)
And Oahu S., I said that you didn't mean the Rand knock on me, so I'm sorry. However you have posted several times - which is how it goes - and so I'm not wrong about that. And I don't buy, sorry guys, that it is somehow bad manners to reply to people especially, as was the case a few times here, when the author of the post asked the commenter (me) a direct question.
BTW, I do think name-calling, a la what Mark does and what you have done in the past Surfer, pretty dang rude, but whatever.
Cheers guys and gals.
The Koch brothers????? Good Lord.
"Yes. People are taking a beating economically, but they have not suddenly forgotten that the immoral live among them and must be legislated against. "
When did it become the duty of government to legislate our morality?
But that's a perfect example of the way the argument gets changed. You see, most people (liberal and conservative) are in favor of providing family planning services at low cost. So instead of arguing against family planning, you now say that PP is a "private charity", and shouldn't get any funding. And you use scare tactics like your rather pitiful analogy to the KKK.
What you come off as is the picture in the Dictionary next to Passive Aggressive, or, truly, the Case Study cited in the Encyclopedia for said malady.
Again, in a Salon with educated people these faults won't go un-noticed or un-commented on.
To say you pointed at one article is a falsehood. You held up Larry Elder (who in my view is the worst type of Uncle Tom, the self-hating kind capable of much harm, a la Clarence Thomas who will soon have his horrid opinion struck from the record; corporations are people, yeah, right) as your example of how urban poor should bootstrap, a patently silly notion flying in the face of every professional in the field, and in the hood itself, and said I should become a regular listener of absurdist program. You said this; then you back-peddled- that is the textbook definition of the passive aggressive behavior that dominates so-called conservative and libertine "thinking". Now, if you were so naive as to listen to Elder all the time, without knowing his whole shtick is ludicrous Rand re-hash nonsense, well, then that is what we ought to be discussing, and the reason I called you on it.
To Netiquette, you may simply in your haze not be able to discern that your habit of post, post, posting in long strings of multiples is not the same as dialog, my view is it is another symptom you ought to be seeking treatment for.
Bing the definition of a Salon, please.
Auwe (Alas)
I think your anger here "taking on all comers" is betraying you. The Churchs tax breaks are a form of subsidy to those who do not believe in many cases they deserve them, especially when they are limiting the choices of our citizens as promised in the constitution, and have become so highly politicised. I think it is a legitimate use of government funds--the same as education and health care.
PP provides the choices and prevention that protects children, and the rest of us given the potential consequences of those children not being protected.
I know you will fight that to the end, but you need to know where other's stand, and it is a reasonable and humane use of tax dollars, certainly better than the funds spent to support the 4.2 million employees the government pays in the secret service.
Planned Parenthood protects the majority because it helps to provide those who otherwise wouldn't have a choice whether or not to bring unwanted children into the world. Children who are not seen and wanted become a threat to the majority, who then is left with the choice of incarcerating them, or killing them in those parts of the country still uncivilized.
Human beings are not different than any other creature. If they are mistreated they will mistreat others. A near moron can recognize this. It behoves the rest of society in the name of their own protection and defense to fund them. They are not going to protect those children, it is a complete fantasy and projection of their own insecurity to say that they will.
Yes, this is a cultural divide--between the selfishness and ignorance of the Gordon Osmond's of the world, who would not shit if they thought it benefited anyone but themselves, and those who take, shall we say, a bit more humanitarian a view.
BJ has adopted the predominant right wing position that anyone and anything firmly or loosely associated with the abortion issue is inherently BAD. For her group, the only equation possible is ABORTION=BAD. The fact that abortions are not paid for directly by government funds is not enough to overcome the ABORTION=BAD association. If any abortion is performed at Planned Parenthood (PP) then EVERYTHING must be bad about PP. For them if ABORTION=BAD and PP does Abortions, they can only think PLANNED PARENTHOOD=ABORTION=BAD. It is truly that simple for them -- no amount of arguing can remove those equal signs. BLACK is BLACK and WHITE is WHITE and never shall there be a mix or tolerance for grey...
Simple equations do not allow for conjecture or nuanced thought. These people do not have the capacity for such complex thought. The equation stands complete as written and cannot be challenged anymore than 1 + 1= 2 can be anything other than what it is.
What if a pregnancy is the result of rape, or if women need services they cannot afford? These are grey areas or answered by other equations such as GOVERNMENT FUNDING=BAD. PP suffers from the association with GOVERNMENT FUNDING as well. GOVERNMENT FUNDING=BAD then PLANNED PARENTHOOD=> GOVERNMENT FUNDING =BAD as well. Should any organization be de-funded that serves a minority of women when another and different minority thinks that organization is BAD requires more complex thoughts. They just cannot think beyond the most simple equations and will not change long-held beliefs about the validity of their adopted set if Simple Equations.
RAPE is not BAD enough to be placed into the ABORTION=BAD equation. Those of us that are willing to fight for individual women's rights will think about the long-term effect on that woman. The other group only thinks about the baby. BABY=GOOD infallibly. So, where does WOMAN in their equation? Here we shall pause for critical thought because it is required to understand them.
If BABY=GOOD and ABORTION=BAD and there is no middle ground, then women must be either BAD or GOOD. If WOMAN=GOOD and BABY=GOOD then WOMAN=BABY=GOOD -- always. ABORTION=BAD and an abortion kills a BABY. The simple equation for that would be BABY=ABORTION=BAD. A BABY can only be GOOD so the equation does not work unless ABORTION could also be GOOD, which of course, it cannot be as it removes the BABY from the equation. How can an innocent baby's life be anything but GOOD? Therefore it is impossible to believe that BABY=BAD=ABORTION could ever be possible.
Since there can be no grey area for these people, we have to review the options open to their brains. For females, the argument is simple: WOMAN=>BABY=GOOD or the other option is WOMAN=>ABORTION=BAD, and for them, WOMAN can mean ONLY one positive thing. They choose WOMAN=BABY=GOOD because there is no circumstance where WOMAN=BABY=ABORTION is not also equal to BAD . It is Fundamental to their belief system and to their personal belief that WOMAN=GOOD.
This Fundamentalist viewpoint works for right wing men, too. Because of EVE and original sin, women can be experienced and equated to both GOOD and BAD. Men can do this because they are not female. For example men can think: WOMAN=BABY=GOOD or WOMAN=ABORTION=BAD because a woman can be either good or bad in a man's mind depending on if she has fallen off the pedestal of GOOD into BAD.
Men can balance more than one equation about women because they are trained to hold conflicting thoughts about the inherent essence of a women from the Bible. It is easy for them to judge any woman wanting an abortion as BAD -- WOMAN=ABORTION=BAD. These men can fight the anti-abortion cause because for them WOMAN=BABY=GOOD, the right and proper cause....
How do I know this? I was raised Catholic, have lived all over the world including the South. I have lived in rural areas akin to the South most of my life. KISS Thinking is a mindset more than related to a geographic location. In the South, however, KISS means Keep It Simple Southerners . Not everyone here thinks this way, but culturally, ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM=GOOD is all pervasive. INTELLECTUAL=NUANCED THOUGHT is rebuffed because NUANCED THOUGHT=HARD.
These equations are useful for every day arguing with the Right. Once you have these memorized them and are dealing with simple-minded people, you always know how the conversation will go. So, hopefully we all GOT IT? If not:
BABY=GOOD
ABORTION=BAD
WOMAN=BAD or WOMAN=GOOD
GOVERNMENT FUNDING=BAD
PLANNED PARENTHOOD=GOVERNMENT FUNDING=BAD and
PLANNED PARENTHOOD=ABORTION=BAD
And Lalucas you wrote "BJ has adopted the predominant right wing position that anyone and anything firmly or loosely associated with the abortion issue is inherently BAD." Actually, I said my point here was not abortion per se. And it ain't. If PP did not one abortion, I'd feel the same. It is an organization that is a non-profit, it is not a government entity, it should fund itself. You too can write a check.
The passive-aggressive absurdities are, well just that, absurd.