Emperors and Democracy

"Democracy" is really a misnomer, isn't it? There is always an "emperor," no matter what the political system is called. Two questions seem valid, though: a) to what extent does the system help the emperor do "good"? and b) is the system able to discourage him/her from doing "harm"? A system that does not do BOTH is ineffective/dysfunctional and needs reform. A system that does NEITHER is tyrannical and should probably be dumped (since its "goodness" depends entirely on the character of the emperor himself/herself).

Even a cursory analysis of the current US system suggests that it is incapable of doing "a" precisely because it is so obsessed with "b." Moreover, in our present context, the perennial tare of racism exacerbates our paralysis: the already clunky "separation of powers" nicely facilitates those in the legislative branch who wish to sabotage the hated black executive (President Obama) and ensure that he will be rendered incapable of any action whatsoever, regardless of the objective goodness or badness of such action. We thus find ourselves most egregiously cast into the category of ineffective/dysfunctional systems.  (The haters and zealots of the right wing would like us to believe that Obama is a "tyrant," when, in actual fact, he is merely the lamest of lame ducks, crippled by a constitutional framework set up in the 18th century when limiting the power of "emperors" was a more vital concern than empowering them to act for the good of the "demos").

Consequently, I conclude, if any progress is to be made by our demos, if any genuine "democratic" good is to be advanced in the US in the 21st century, we must resolve ourselves to inaugurate substantial changes in the basic legal framework governing our land: i.e., the Constitution must be profoundly altered, so as to unfetter the "emperor" (because there is always an emperor) and enable him/her--finally--to take positive action in the interests of the commonweal. In short, we need more, not less, imperial authority.

Is that a risk? Well, yes, certainly. Useful constitutional checks and balances must remain in place; Congress (but a streamlined, fairly-elected, unicameral Congress) must continue to initiate or at least approve legislation. And it is indispensable that the courts retain their autonomy and the right to judicial review. Civil rights must be guaranteed by the new Constitution, and a means for removing an emperor (if he/she behaves unconstitutionally) is of course a sine qua non. All very hairy, all very scary.

But our current order is so obsolete and so grievously incapacitated by self-imposed impediments that there seems no other solution. Our so-called "democracy" has degenerated into an eternal gladiatorial combat in which sword-fighters bearing names like Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann fight to a bloody draw with net-fighters called Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren--and, as witness to which, the "emperor" (Obama) can give neither a thumbs up nor a thumbs down, since his hands have been constitutionally bound to his chair. So it goes on and on, not much bread, really less-than-diverting circuses.

Well, enough! "We, the people" are growing rather weary of being treated as dupes and suckers by the Washington ancien régime. Perhaps, if our foppish leaders fail to institute some genuine constitutional changes, we may opt to skip the circuses entirely--and in lieu of gagging on the stale bread offered, mix our historical metaphors and bake ourselves some revolutionary cake.

P.S. And don't tell me that revolutions are about the demos getting RID of emperors: historically, revolutions have merely gotten rid of ineffectual emperors and replaced them with other newly-empowered, more people-focused emperors. Louis XVI and Nicolas II gave way to Napoleon and Lenin. There is always an emperor.

1492, or The History of Spain as Learned on a Two-Week Rick Steves Tour

First came the Romans, way back even before Jesus and Mary and Joseph in the days when people called Spain "Hispania" and ate larks' tongues instead of ham. The Romans built aqueducts to bring water to ginormous bath houses in which they lolled about and got soft and wrinkly, so the Visigoths drove them out and then

proceeded to assassinate each other without building anything worth photographing. Later, in 711 (like the convenience store), the Moors arrived and constructed pretty Alcazars and Alhambras (which means “red”), but they also took baths and got weak and wrinkly, so Isabella and Ferdinand—who were Catholic and didn’t bathe—chased the Moors out (in 1492), expelled the Jews (in 1492), sent Columbus to America (in 1492) and made everybody eat ham at least three times a day (from 1492 onward). Unfortunately, eating salty ham causes fluid retention, and the Reyes Católicos got water on the brain (more “soft and wrinkly”, worse than bathing) and subsequently spawned Juana la Loca, who went nuts for Philip the Fair and begat, with him, Charles the First, also known as Charles the Fifth (don’t ask).

Charles the First/Fifth stole Latin American gold and used it to make huge baroque monstrances and incense burners and statues of Nuestra Señora of Something or Other intended to defeat and reconvert the Protestants in Germany. Then, after overdosing on ham, he abdicated in disgust and his son Felipe II became the first of a whole passel of weak-minded Habsburg kings, all named Felipe and all of whom lisped because of severe underbites and had children who played with deformed dwarves while being painted by Velásquez.


Eventually the Habsburg underbite became so severe that the Felipes simply died out (perhaps, too, they had begun to bathe) and the Bourbons of France assumed the throne in order to preside over the decline of the Spanish empire in truly Parisian elegance. The Borbones had big noses instead of underbites, but they continued to lisp anyway.

One really exceptionally big-nosed Borbón, named Charles III, erected a royal palace in Madrid and tried to build plumbing and sewers to drain away all the bath water. It didn’t work, and thereafter (except for a brief interlude while Napoleon's brother, Joseph, a.k.a. Pepe la Botella, tried to drink Spain into submission) an astonishing succession of Borbones hung around Madrid bathing and eating churros and chocolate and getting so soft and wrinkly that finally, a republic had to be declared in 1931.

That pissed off a guy named Franco who sent in German planes to bomb a dreary little town named Guernica in an area that didn’t even want to be Spanish. In turn, this bombing inspired a guy named Picasso to paint an enormous, jumbled-up black and white picture of the devastated town. Unfortunately this dramatic picture of gloom and suffering (both great favorites of the Spanish) has since been placed in a big Madrid museum which is closed on Tuesdays and therefore cannot be seen. Meanwhile Franco (remember him?) proclaimed himself a dictator and said he would shoot any Spaniard who didn’t both bathe AND go to Mass on Sundays.

By 1975 when he died from over-dictating, everybody was so soft and wrinkly and sick of being católicos that they wanted a king again, so they buried Franco deep under a Fallen Mountain and crowned Juan Carlos I, another Borbón, whom everyone liked for a while until he shot a bunch of elephants and had to abdicate because, in Spain, it is simply loco to kill elephants and not bulls. 

Now Spain has a new king (another Felipe, alas), bathing facilities in every building, and, predictably, therefore, an economic crisis brought about by an influx of German (not Latin American) gold. No one is dancing the macarena these days, though there still seems to be plenty of ham to go around. And moreover, the motto of Spain is “Plus Ultra”--which means, más o menos, “there’s more yet to come.” Claro.

Success is Counted sweetest by those who have Retired

Success is Counted sweetest

By those who have—Retired—

Who have no Frigates but their books

And ramble in the Road alone—

They may hear Flies buzz

In the Room—

But they No longer pause

Where Children strive at Recess—

Or hefty fellows—in the grass

With Blue—uncertain stumbling Buzz—

Deny they ever Bashed a bird—

Or tasted liquor ever brewed.

Not one of all the Purple Host

Who took their Leave today—

Can feel a Funeral in their Brain

When they recall the Bell

That daily makes all teachers’ Feet

Mechanical, go round—

And our Nerves sit ceremonious

As kids arrive—a Gale—

Who—supercilious—peer

Into our Lunch bags and—

With horrid, hooting stanza—

Chase themselves down the Hall.

Retirees may have Bustle

In their House—at times—

But—Unmoved—they simply

Shut the door—Like Stone.

Such Madness is Divinest Sense

To a discerning Eye—

Retirement is a light escape

Into the beautiful.


(My apologies to Emily Dickinson)

Minnesota and Wisconsin: To Dress or To Drink?

I've just returned from another of my many trips to La Crosse, Wisconsin--which, though across "The River" in a different state, has the shopping mall closest to my hometown of Winona, Minnesota.

While standing in line to exchange a shirt at Macy's, I overheard two different conversations--the first between two Wisconsinites (extolling the virtues of a local beer), the second between two Minnesotans (complaining about Wisconsin's sales tax on clothes).

I then had my little epiphany about the TRUE difference between these sister states.

Forget about the Vikings vs. the Packers. Never mind the (undoubtedly temporary and largely coincidental) dichotomy of "blue" Minnesota vs. "red" Wisconsin.

The essential distinction lies in attitudes inherited from our ancestors: the Scandinavians who founded Minnesota vs. the Germans who settled Wisconsin.

Now this is not entirely a distinction without a difference--though considering the Scandinavian/German overlap in the two states, the difference should probably not be over-estimated. Everyone who has ever spent any appreciable time in these northern marches of the Midwest knows that Wisconsin and Minnesota are decidedly look-alike siblings:  the snow, the lakes, the butter, the cheese, the river, the fishing--all bind us rather closely together.

Still, Wisconsin is the elder, the more populous, the more influential, the bossier, the more extreme sister.  Minnesota may be a bit taller and have bigger "big" cities, but we Minnesotans have never managed to produce either a progressive with the gravitas of Robert LaFollette or a fascist as despicable as Joseph McCarthy. Hubert Humphrey and Michele Bachmann pale in comparison.

Why is that?  Again, I return to the Scandinavian vs. German mindsets--as illustrated, perhaps, in the conversations I overheard. Here's what I mean:

In Minnesota, the Scandinavian be-nice-be-safe mindset decrees that we regard clothing (e.g., fuzzy sweatshirts, even if they bear slogans in cryptic, cutesy-dippy language) as necessary for human survival in frigid climes. Accordingly, there is no sales tax on clothing in Minnesota.  Booze, on the other hand, while it may afford considerable comfort during long winters, may also lead to embarrassingly conspicuous drunkenness and even--worse--unseemly confrontations.  Therefore, alcoholic beverages are heavily taxed in Scandinavian Minnesota.

In more Teutonically self-assured Wisconsin, by contrast, it is booze (e.g., beer) that is thumpingly endorsed as a necessity of human life--how else can cabin fever be vanquished?--and so the sustaining fruit of the vine and kiss of the hops receive only the most piddling of taxes. Clothing, though, IS taxed, since however comforting it might be, there is the ever-present danger that it might also tempt weak-willed clothing-wearers into sinful ostentation or--worse--irresponsible and most un-Germanic profligacy.

Yet another illustration comes to mind: churchgoing.  Now everyone knows that all Minnesotans and Wisconsinites are "more or less" Lutheran (even if they're Catholic or atheist).  That means that it has never occurred to them NOT to be more or less Lutheran.

But the variety of Lutheran is what matters.  Generally speaking, there are three types of Lutherans: ELCA Lutherans, Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, Missouri Synod Lutherans.  The ELCA folks are pretty "mainstream" and consequently nice but unremarkable. The Wisconsin Synod and Missouri Synod types are, however, more dogmatically "prickly" (the Wisconsin Synod actually makes its members "register" in order to receive Communion: if your name isn't on the list, you don't get any holy food.)

So, I always think of Minnesotans as, metaphorically at least, ELCA people: they go to church every once in a while, when the fishing is bad and/or when they're feeling guilty for not having been nice enough during the week. They sit in the far back of the church, keep completely silent, try not to piss off the "good" people in the other pews, and sneak out the side door after the service. Wisconsinites, however, are much more likely to belong to the Wisconsin or Missouri Synods (again, metaphorically speaking).  They loftily occupy "their" church every Sunday, they sit right up front, they sing real loud, and they deliberately try to piss off all the "bad" people attempting to hide out in the back. Those guys need role models, you know (and advice on the best beer to buy.)

Wisconsin drinks and preaches. Minnesota bundles up and sneaks out the side door.

Reflections Upon a Road Trip to Florida

Reflections Upon a Road Trip from Minnesota to Florida and Back Again.

• There is always another truck up ahead.
• Beware of pickup trucks with massive dangling metal testicles.
• Obesity begins at Cracker Barrel restaurants.
• Jesus is coming back to Georgia.  Soon.
• Jesus is Lord in Tennessee (and "you" know it).
• The Federal Government should "adopt a highway"--in fact, the entire Interstate system--and FIX it!
• Georgia and Tennessee have a rather alarmingly large number of place names ending in "hootchie."
• The highest point in the entire state of Illinois is probably the freeway interchange where I-39 crosses I-80.
• The "Nashville Skyline" is not worth the wait on the crumbling freeway.
• "Road Construction" means orange drums and abandoned backhoes.
• The worst road in the world is I-57 in Illinois.

• Motels have been renamed "Inns"--and $30 has been added to the price of a former "motel" room to pay for this upgrade in nomenclature.  
• There are "adult superstores" in Wisconsin and Georgia, but nothing "adult" in between.
• Florida's entire GDP is dependent upon revenue earned in other states and spent in Florida.
• Some Charlestonians still refer to the Civil War as "the recent unpleasantness."
• Beware of two trucks in the fast lane trying to pass a third truck:  traffic will back up for miles.
• Avoid Paducah.
• It is possible, in Georgia, to get an entire meal made of pecans.
• A bunch of casinos in Wisconsin are operated by the rather infelicitously-named "Ho-Chunk Tribe."  
• Different states have different rules about advertising along interstates.  Georgia is especially billboard-egregious: guns, Jesus, adult toys, pecans, spinal adjustments, self-storage, mattresses, trucks and chicken fingers appear to be the major products available in the Peachtree State.
• White tourists are welcome in Charleston.  If you're black, you can visit, but you have to sell Gullah products to white tourists.
• Florida has no farms and no creatures, other than people and their pets, whose native habitat is not a swamp.
• The border between the "South" and the "North" is somewhere around Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
• It is SO good to be back in the North.

LOL PWNED

At the end of the day
Man up and
Double down
Take no prisoners
In tighty whities or
Cat's pajamas
Touch base
With user friendly
Freeway close
Self-storage
Deal breakers and man caves
The bully pulpit
Resonates
With ballpark figures
On affordable care
Family values
Play phone tag
In hazmat suits
Whinging
Re.  personhood
Bedhead hair
And en suite
Entitlements
Macular degeneration
Kerfuffles
Immaculate Conception
Pop goes the weasel
LOL
PWNED

The Icky Christian Agenda

The "homosexual" agenda gets a lot of attention on Fox News which has apparently concluded, along with Pat Robertson, One Million Moms, the American Family Association and other such self-appointed "guardians" of American morality that gays have a not-so-secret "game plan" for undermining and destroying the fabric of our national (and, of course, "Christian") society.  Pat Robertson even suggested that Christians need a "vomit button" to hit when the gays just seem too  "perverted" or "icky."

Actually, though, isn't it the other way around?  Isn't it the Christians who are the perverts? Isn't it the fundamentalist Christians who are endeavoring to subvert the Republic?

It would certainly seem so to me.  Because, truly, any moderately intelligent student of history knows that it's utter rubbish to assert, as these delusional gasbags do, that "America was founded as a Christian nation" and that the framers of our Constitution intended to create yet another theist state with an established and mandatorily-embraced mythology as its default ideology.

Jefferson said, "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies."

Madison wrote, "What has been the fruits of Christianity? ...Superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Well, I agree with both statements. And I therefore announce (this isn't much of a surprise, I suppose) that I stand, with Jefferson and Madison, in opposition to the following noxious tenets of the Christian (not homosexual) Agenda that, in my opinion, poses a continuing menace to the survival of our secular Republic--the noble institution that Franklin said the Founders had given us "if we can keep it.":

1.  Christian teachers who recruit, attempting to turn innocent children into intolerant, other-hating, Christians like themselves;
2.  Advocating prayer in schools, a clear attempt at brainwashing kids into believing that docile wishing for something is an effective alternative to taking action to achieve that thing;
3.  Tax exemptions for churches; why should such anti-democratic and fundamentally seditious, institutions receive fiduciary privileges?
4.  Public displays of spirituality; more propaganda and attempts to influence impressionable minds (religion is a private matter);
5.  So-called "family values"; sentimental and distorted view of human realities; a perversion, really, not to mention a misrepresentation of the historical Jesus--who abandoned his family, never married, never had kids and never held a job;
6.  Missionary sexual mores; boring, conformist, unoriginal approach to something that should be not just procreative but recreative--and joyfully creative whether or not babies result;
7.  Putting Christ in Christmas; brainwashing, using emotion and sentiment to promote a nefarious agenda and foster belief in at least one clearcut lie--that Jesus' birth coincided with pre-existing Winter Solstice celebrations--as well as in a probable second lie--that said Jesus was "god" incarnate;
8.  Christian lifestyle, churchgoing, praying, Jesus movies, icky stuff like that; cringeworthy foolishness in such bad taste and of such dubious social usefulness that it should not be given public approbation;  indecent, patently offensive behavior.
9.  Church bells on Sunday morning; why make the whole world wake up, just because you feel guilty and want to celebrate your guilt; a public nuisance;
10.  Prayer before city council meetings; no superstitious, hypocritical religious nonsense in any public forum; clearly unconstitutional!
11.  In-your-face religious garb:  priests and nuns and Jesus t-shirts with offensive pictures or slogans; now I realize that "believers" have a first-amendment right to express themselves.  But is it really necessary to deliberately provoke your law-abiding atheist neighbors with this dominionist garbage?  Please wear this obscene stuff only when participating in your cult rituals.
12.  "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; how dare you try to force good Americans to pledge allegiance to some silly, mean-spirited "sky daddy"!
13.  "In God We Trust" on our money; why not trust people; GOD ain't gonna pay the interest.
14.  Insane attempts to legislate fertilized eggs (embryos) into "personhood"; your personal fantasies do not constitute demonstrable fact.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.  This subversive "agenda" goes on and on--and its advocates are everywhere--on Fox News, in Congress, in the malls, and behind the wheels of those trucks with little "fishy" bumper stickers! But this is NOT what our Enlightenment Founders intended. No way! Yes, I suppose that silly, credulous people have the right to worship tinpot gods if they want, but they they have NO RIGHT to expect good Enlightenment Americans to grant special privileges to them or their bilge.  To use one of their favorite expressions (when they are denouncing homosexuals), they have NO RIGHT to ram this nonsense down our throats.  They are not entitled to any special public status by virtue of their private beliefs and practices.  So Christians: go to church if you want; pray to Jesus if you want; say "Merry Christmas" if you want (and if you don't mind offending others); fast on Good Friday if you want; mumble "God Bless You" when someone sneezes if you want.  But leave the rest of us alone and don't try to make America LOOK LIKE YOU.  Because, frankly, most of you (I make exception for a few milquetoast Episcopalians and Congregationalists) are pretty ugly, Christians. You're awfully, awfully, well...the first word that comes to my mind is "icky."  Yes, that's right:  you are icky people. Just as Jefferson and Madison knew.  Ewwww  (*pushes Robertson's vomit button*).

P.S.:  OK, I acknowledge that in writing this post, I chose to be deliberately "over-the-top" in co-opting the anti-gay language so frequently employed by asshole televangelists and extreme fundamentalist politicians.  I am fully aware that many sensible and sensitive Christians do not share the views that I have denounced.  Still, I think it is a good exercise for Christians of all stripes to begin to think differently--to stop assuming that THEY are the "norm" and that OTHERS are the "outliers" or "threats."  Maybe, just maybe, it's the CHRISTIAN lifestyle (not the homosexual lifestyle, not the humanist lifestyle, not the Muslim or the Jewish or the Spaghetti-Monster lifestyle) that is keeping our society from realizing its full potential as a more compassionate and more perfect Union.

And even if this is not so, even if Christians are just an innocuous group of folks with over-active imaginations and nasty (but "harmless") vocabulary, isn't it about time that they actually FEEL what it's like to be treated by their fellow citizens as dangerous and debauched scum?  I offer no apologies for this "turnabout" lesson.