High Holy Mass of Contradictions

Everyone who knows I’m a Hall and Oates super-fan keeps asking if I saw them on the Daily Show the other night. Never fear, I just did.

I loved it! (OK, I loved it in spite of it seeming like they could have maybe used another rehearsal of the song.) They’ve made guest appearances on other shows in the past, but they usually don’t get to interact much before they launch into whatever song they’re there to perform. It was fun to see them have a little comic setup before they played.

And “the only non-douchebag on that show”? Gold.

Originally published at Sticky, Sweet, & A Little Overdressed. You can comment here or there.

“Suppression is very American. … If you don’t like abortion, don’t
have one. … Why should it matter to straight couples if gay couples
get married?” - John Irving, Ryman Auditorium, Nashville, November 8,
2008

Originally published at Sticky, Sweet, & A Little Overdressed. You can comment here or there.

My dad died three years ago today. That’s going to linger with me all day anyway, but especially because my dad, despite conservative leanings, was already impressed with Obama back then. I bet he would be feeling happy and proud today, and crying like a baby.

I really liked Obama’s comment during his acceptance speech that, to all those who didn’t support them, he would be their president too. I felt like that did two things really well: it suggested that he would be open to input from those outside party lines, and it also, in good managerial style, quietly affirmed his authority. Any manager who’s ever had to take over an existing team knows that you sometimes come into a situation where you don’t have consistent support and you have to play that card both ways: I’m nice, I listen well, and/but don’t even question that I’m the boss. I think that was well played.

I’m just so proud that we did it. And relieved.

Originally published at Sticky, Sweet, & A Little Overdressed. You can comment here or there.

I briefly skipped across something in a feed a few days back referring to this, but I didn’t realize what song the campaign was using, which means I didn’t realize the songwriter in question is none other than my neighbor, Gretchen Peters.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Once again, nice flag-waving title, and the chorus generally sounds pretty upbeat:

Let freedom ring
Let the white dove sing
Let the whole world know that today is the day of a reckoning
Let the weak be strong
Let the right be wrong
Roll the stone away
Let the guilty pay
It’s Independence Day

That penultimate line is the giveaway. The song, written by Nashville veteran Gretchen Peters, tells the story of the mother of an 8-year-old daughter who escapes an abusive husband by torching their house, with him still inside.

“The fact that the McCain/Palin campaign is using a song about an abused woman as a rallying cry for their vice presidential candidate, a woman who would ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, is beyond irony,” Peters said. “They are co-opting the song, completely overlooking the context and message, and using it to promote a candidate who would set women’s rights back decades.”

[…]

Now Peters says she’ll be donating her songwriting royalties from the song to Planned Parenthood — in Palin’s name. “I hope with the additional income provided by the McCain/Palin campaign, Planned Parenthood will be able to help many more women in need,” Peters said.

It’s certainly not the first time politicians have used a song for a campaign without paying attention to its underlying message, but it’s arguably one of the more bewildering usages.

Share This

Originally published at The Bee Hive. You can comment here or there.

I sure hope this comes to be:

The mayor has called on the committee to identify goals and develop a plan of action that would help Nashville to first become the greenest city in the Southeast, and later one of the greenest cities in the nation.

As the article points out, there’s plenty of work to be done, from outdated stormwater infrastructure (as evidenced by the turrets of water that run down our street when it rains) to sorely lacking mass transit options, with recycling and air quality in between — but it all seems manageable in the long term. I’m glad to see attention being paid to the gaps that need to be addressed.

Now if they would just get moving on a mass transit option that would take me from Nashville to Franklin. I’m getting a little tired of these $60 tanks of gas.

Share This

Originally published at The Bee Hive. You can comment here or there.

I’ve been completely out of the loop on the drama and goings-on over at MusicCityBloggers.com, which I say in part to apologize to those for whom I’ve not been able to be supportive and in part to claim that I take no part in the madness. The mess is expansive and the scars are starting to look like they run pretty deep.

While I wasn’t completely naive about the possibility it might blow up, I really had a very optimistic outlook for it in the beginning. But I and many other contributors have never been nearly active enough to spread the workload out evenly enough, and possibly as a consequence, the voices have become too much of a shrill monotone.

So much of the nay-saying about MCB seems to pertain to a lack of balance in political opinion, which I find unfortunate. I have found that blog, at times, to be a great source of reasoned debate between people of differing viewpoints. I don’t blog often about politics, per se, but like most people, the majority of my opinions can be taken at some level as an indicator of my political leanings. After all, you don’t meet all that many vegan (well, mostly vegan), child-free, atheist, bisexual… conservative Republicans. I’m not saying it’s a foregone conclusion from my writings that I’m a liberal/progressive/Green/what-have-you, but I think the overlap between my lifestyle/preferences and political viewpoint is easy to spot.

What’s my point? I guess it’s that I don’t think a community blog need necessarily be overtly about politics, and I don’t think politics need necessarily be a policy discussion every time in order to be meaningful. But it’s often the topics that do deal directly with policy that turn the most vicious — or maybe that’s because those discussions somehow attract the most vicious commenters.

I don’t have any answers; I just find it unfortunate and I hope that the next era of MCB corrects course and is stronger for the growing pains.

Share This

Originally published at The Bee Hive. Please leave any comments there.

Reading over the thread at Music City Bloggers about mortgage foreclosures and such, I'm struck by a disparity I notice in the voices of the regulars there and in other online fora.

Why does it seem that so many of the people who get most passionate when it comes to matters of personal financial responsibility and conservation of fiscal resources are not equally passionate when it comes to environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources?

If these people can applaud and embrace the concept of budgeting dollars and curbing consumption when it is out of scale with the economic resources available, why can't they applaud and embrace the same principle when it comes to things like water, oil, clean air, trees, etc?

Is it because they don't think of it as a personal responsibility? Is it because no one has told them convincingly enough that it's the right thing to do?

You know what I think we need in the U.S.? We need a pro-environment activist who speaks from a conservative / Christian basis. Sort of like -- no, scratch that, exactly like the Dave Ramsey of environmentalism.

Doesn't this violate at least the spirit of the "no soliciting votes within 100 feet" rule?


ETA: I know the picture doesn't get the details across, but the people in the blue tent are campaigning for Erica Gilmore for a District 19 Council seat, and one of the guys in the tent has a bullhorn he's using to address voters as they enter the church-cum-polling-place across the street. He very clearly asked me and Karsten to "vote for Gilmore" as we were entering the polling place. I don't know how that law is enforced, but I don't get the impression that this dude is in full compliance.

Liberadio included me in its roundup of "notable" bloggers endorsing Briley. Or, well, now that I read it again more closely, I guess they called the endorsement notable. Not so much me. Oh well, back to insignificance.

S-townMike has decided he wants Briley for the next mayor of Nashville.

I'm so glad to read that. Anyone who's seen our front yard (or pictures of our front yard) in recent weeks knows we're a Briley household. But I have a great deal of respect for S-townMike and the strength of his views on community and neighborhoods and what's good for Nashville in general. So honestly, just to know that he's thrown his support behind Briley as well pleases me, but I'm especially pleased that some of our reasons are the same:

Every opportunity I have to talk to Mr. Briley, he makes a concerted effort to listen, to chat with me authentically, and to be accountable for what he tells me. [...] I have never seen him evade a difficult question put to him.

Indeed I have seen David Briley seem to seek out difficult questions. I really sense that he's a man of great character and integrity, and it comes through most in one-on-one interactions. Not to say the man's never been wrong or won't be wrong again -- we're electing a mayor, not an icon -- but I get a good feeling when I talk with him that he sincerely means to do the right thing by people, and to do the right thing by Nashville.

Which reminds me of one more thing S-townMike says:

It is a testament to who David Briley is: a consummate leader who is not simply versed in the intricacies of governing, but a man readily attuned and energized by his responsibilities to the communities that he governs.

Exactly.

Chris Wage -- whose opinions on the growth and development of Nashville I also have a great deal of respect for -- has this to say about the race:

Everyone I’ve talked to in the past week — admittedly a small sample set — has been excited about Dean or Briley, whereas I’ve gotten nothing but baffled apathy regarding the rest of the field, particularly with regards to Clement.

I have had some overlap in sampling with Chris, but our sample set is not exactly the same and my experience is still identical to his. More specifically, the people I meet who are passionate about the race are passionate about Briley. I think it comes back to how much his character comes through when folks meet him.

Hey, look. I know I'm not an expert on local politics. I'm not a Nashville native, and I don't have as much background on who's who and what their backgrounds are as do a lot of folks I know. But I do pay attention, and I learn more every day, and I do genuinely care. When Karsten and I moved here four and a half years ago, we didn't know we were going to fall in love with the place so much. I'm happy to call Nashville home and I hope to for a very long time. I believe David Briley is the mayor we need to help the city continue to grow responsibly, to address the valid concerns that come with growth, and to become an even better place to live than it already is.

Brittney Gilbert has resigned her post as author/editor of Nashville Is Talking following a truly hideous episode of misunderstanding and attacks primarily from — get this — left-wing bloggers. Brittney is a lefty herself, but her position was misunderstood by her linking to a racist piece of garbage a few days ago without making her reason for linking it explicit — which was unnecessary for regular readers, as we all know her take on the mudslinger in question — and in the ensuing maelstrom, whatever the real issues were, they got lost in a flurry of ridiculous trolling and name-calling. Aunt B has an excellent summary of it all.

I’ve been following this whole thing for the past 12 hours or so, and it has been making me reflective and a little sad. I’m disappointed that more people don’t exercise compassion in their dealings with others. I’m disappointed that so many people resort to name-calling so quickly. I’m disappointed that this ultimately pushed Brittney to the point of resignation. And I’m just sad to see extreme reactions have such influence while opportunities for balance and understanding are overlooked.

That may make me sound like a “can’t we all just get along” type, but the thing is, I’m not afraid of confrontation. I believe in being direct with people when there are conflicts, and I strive to be gentle until my gentleness is misunderstood as a sign of weakness, and then all bets are off. I’m not always as compassionate as I should be. I forget sometimes about the feelings and frustrations of the people I’m interacting with. I think most of us do. *

The thing that makes me feel bad, personally, is that this all started because a dude died. And it was the reaction to the dude’s death that got everyone talking. You know, Talking. As in Nashville Is. And Brittney linked to an excerpt of some talking, as she is free to decide to do within the bounds of her job. (I expressed concern in comment #28 over how the link would be interpreted by those unfamiliar to the blog, as well as reservations about adding authority to the racist nonsense by linking to it, but I certainly never meant to suggest that Brittney was wrong to make that call.) It was controversial. It got people talking. I agree that the fact that she linked to it was as relevant as the link itself, but I can’t understand why so many people responded with such a lack of curiosity about either. They simply made their assumptions and began calling names.

I can’t decide whether to hope that WKRN decides to keep Nashville Is Talking up and running with a new author/editor or that they shut it down because Brittney is so much the heart and soul of that blog. What I hope for Brittney is easy, because I fully believe she’ll do really well in her next move.

* (I’m not sure why, but this reminds me to mention that Mack was surprised a few weeks ago, after reading my writings here for some time now, when I described myself in conversation as liberal. Huh? Not that it’s an either-or proposition, but I wonder how many conservatives he knows who are bisexual atheist child-free-by-choice vegans. I’m curious to meet one now!)

Share This

Originally published at The Bee Hive. You can comment here or there.

• I got a flu shot today, and almost immediately began experiencing a strong metallic taste in my mouth. Within twenty minutes, I began to feel woozy. The nurse who administered the shot said she'd never heard of the metallic taste side effect, but advised me to eat and drink something. I did, but both symptoms have continued throughout the day. Only after getting the shot (and starting to experience my weird symptoms) did I have a conversation with a coworker who told me what she knew about the suspected hazards of flu shots (with mercury looking more and more like the culprit for my metallic taste), and now I really wish I hadn't gotten that damn shot.
  
  
• Work is pretty hectic right now, and looks as if it will continue to be hectic for the rest of the month. Can't really talk about it, but hey! Great timing for NaSoWriMo, right?
  
  
• But Rummy is out and Webb is in, so Democrats appear to have the Senate, and we can all wish Donald a fond farewell. That's at least a halfway decent consolation prize for the shock and frustration that was the landslide passage of Amendment 1 in Tennessee.
  

Update: Just adding a link, for my future reference, to the entry I went back and found from three years ago when I got a flu shot and also described my state as "woozy." So... I'm thinking this'll be my last flu shot.

It looks as if Amendment 1 will pass, and that sickens me. It upsets Mike at Chez Bez, too, and he makes an interesting observation:

I see amendments like these and think that it's just a ploy by one party to get people to the polls ("Don't have an opinion about taxes? How about gays?"). But then, in a tight race where Corker is currently winning with 53% and the amendment winning by over 80%, that tells me that a lot of Ford voters are voting YES, too. (Or does that mean that a lot of YES voters aren't casting a vote for the senate at all?)

Considering that a vote for Ford is almost not even a vote for a Democrat, I can see where there's little conflict with voting for Ford and voting Yes for Amendment 1. And I suppose it's not a given that Democrats are going to be supportive of gay rights anyway (don't ask, don't tell!) and some conservatives have been making some good arguments against 1, like this amusing but logical-in-its-conservatism argument:

Constitutional Amendment #1: No. I make it a point not to care what other people do with their lives, as long as it doesn't affect me. The gays getting married, though I believe inadvisable, isn't my business. If your answer in this debate is to amend the state constitution to prevent the possibility of such a union, you should think about what that means. Rather than limiting the power of government over our lives, you are expanding it. What could be more Communist than that?

and this conservative's argument about a better way to "protect" marriage:

Defense against threats--real or preceived--has won many elections for the Republicans, and so I guess they're sticking to the "defense" guns on the marriage amendment as well. Even though it's among the weaker arguments the Vote Yes camp can offer.

And even with all that sound reasoning, it looks like Amendment 1 will pass. Oh, Tennessee, I'm disappointed in us.

to the people who didn't vote because it would have taken too long or been too inconvenient:

Yeah, you're right. It really would be much more convenient to live in a dictatorship.

I also posted this over at Nashville Metroblogging, but check out these lines out the door by 7:20 AM.

If you're in Tennessee, you've no doubt heard about Proposition 1, but maybe you don't know what the amendment entails, or how exactly it would affect you.

Here is the text of the amendment:

The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state.  Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee.  If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.

If you are heterosexual, this amendment will not directly affect you or limit your rights in any way. However, if you are a bisexual or homosexual person living in Tennessee, this amendment severely limits your rights. Marriage secures more than 1,000 rights for couples.




Terry Frank has written a pro-prop-1 post at her blog, and the core of her argument seems to be that marriage is primarily about having and raising children. Naturally, I take issue with this logic, and responded in a comment, saying:

As a bisexual, non-religious woman in a child-free-by-choice marriage with a man, I obviously find significant fault with this logic and this defense of policy, but the strongest five are these:

1) The idea that marriage must be defined around the bearing of children, thereby invalidating childless and child-free couples, including those who are physically unable to reproduce, those who are past child-bearing age, those who choose not to have children for health reasons, financial reasons, or any of dozens of other sound reasons.

2) The idea that same-sex couples are somehow less valid than mixed-sex couples, and less deserving of social support and the myriad legal protections well above and beyond relevance to parenting that marriage affords couples.

3) The idea that religion should enter into a policy definition of marriage in a nation whose concept of government is predicated on separation of church and state.

4) The idea that children should be borne to provide care to their aging parents, rather than supporting real social services that provide care for aging people regardless of their parental status.

5) The idea that same-sex couples that choose to raise children (by adoption, from previous relationships, through artificial insemination, or any other means), and more importantly, the idea that their children are somehow not deserving of the rights, protections, and opportunities afforded by marriage.

Do you oppose Prop 1? Please, please, please: make sure you vote.

Edited to add: My comments on Terry's blog begin quite a ways down the page, in case you're interested in reading them in context.

Are rights given by god or by government? If you don’t believe in god, do you still have rights?

These are the questions Donald Sensing asked in his blog today. When this post showed up on Nashville Is Talking (a local blog aggregator), I knew I had to respond. Because as I said in my comment, this is the second time in a few years that I’ve been told that I (through inclusion in some group) “don’t deserve any rights at all.”

The core of his post seems to be this:

So could not we religious people simply say, “Sorry, persecuting atheists is no longer against our religon?” If you think not, why not?

Whether you are a believer or a non-believer, I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Share This

Originally published at The Bee Hive. You can comment here or there.

Ever thought of a metaphor as deadly? You might after reading this article by George Lakoff in AlterNet. Metaphors and how they shape our thoughts and the world around us have long been the subject of Lakoff's work (although he's also written about semi-related topics such as in his book "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind" which is not only very relevant to the work I do, but also one of my favorite book titles ever, but I digress). In this article, though, his investigation of metaphor may be critical to building a successful opposition response to war advocates. By framing the 9/11 attacks, and our response to them, as a war, Bush & Co have been able to tap into some kind of primal patriotism -- that of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" variety.

Conservatives have grown very good at this sort of linguistic manipulation. Against abortion? That makes you "pro-life." Sign me up! I want to be pro-life. Who wouldn't? Against marriage equality for same-sex couples? That's because you support "family values." Neat! I do, too!

But progressives have been slower to pick up on this metaphorical framing. And yet, as Lakoff states, language "can determine how we think and act." Shouldn't we be paying attention to how we describe ourselves and our causes? Shouldn't we be looking for opportunities to re-frame debates and issues the way we want them seen? I think it's harder for many on the Left, because the "with us/against us" dichotomy isn't the way most of us parse the world, and that's an advantage to many on the Right. In fact, it's a struggle to even write this post without inserting a bunch of parenthetical caveats ("not all conservatives think this way!" etc ad nauseum) but maybe this isn't the time for such gentle consideration of those who oppose us. Maybe this is the time for us to wise up, assess the message coming from the folks who've kept themselves in charge in spite of the wishes of the majority, and start responding to their tactics -- not necessarily with the same tactics, but measure for measure in tactics we can stand behind.

And we can start, as Lakoff suggests, by exposing the war metaphor as just that: a metaphor. See how we've been manipulated, America? Take it back. Re-frame it. To what end? As Lakoff says, "It would allow us to name right-wing ideology, to spell it out, look at its effects, and to see what awful things it has done, is doing, and threatens to keep on doing. The blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq, in New Orleans, in our economy, and throughout the country at large should be placed squarely where it belongs -- on right-wing ideology that calls itself 'conservative' but mocks real American values."

As long as the leadership continues to manipulate, let's call them on it. And bit by bit, maybe we can start to take back the direction of the country, steering it towards a more upright, diplomatic place where those of us who've become ashamed of our government can find some cause for pride.

I miss the days when Toby Keith was cool enough to collaborate with Sting. *sigh*

Something I forgot to mention yesterday, but which I was thinking a lot about, is this:

We talk a lot at my workplace about setting people's expectations: setting management's expectations, setting users' expectations, etc.

From what I've seen, the news media outlets, the election commissions, the government, and what-have-you have all done a miserable job of setting our expections -- the people's expectations -- that elections aren't decided in a day.

Now I realize that's not as sensational, and it's not as good for ratings, but really, why can't there be a new message put forth that 11/2 is just the beginning of the process, and the real answer will be announced on, let's say 11/14. Hey, I voted early this year, so I can attest that it is possible to vote and then wait patiently  (or not so patiently, but still wait) for over a week for the results.

If no other election reform happened, but we all agreed to give the officials the necessary time to count all the ballots -- and hell, maybe even count 'em a few times -- wouldn't we be better off? Wouldn't people on all sides feel like their vote was really being taken seriously?

This is what I want. If not in '08, then in '12. Or maybe we should start with the non-presidential elections, since fewer people take an interest in that anyway. Maybe it would be easier to spread the idea culturally if the active voters were already familiar with the new delay from voting in the local elections.

Go ahead: shoot holes in the idea. I want to know if it's flawed. Because if it makes sense, I'm going to talk about it with everyone I know, and I do know some people involved in local elections. Maybe I can actually be heard. And wouldn't that be an interesting experience?