Sorry to keep ranting, but I’m pissed.
According to this news story, Bush said (at a fundraiser, because that’s all any politician does and will do until 2005), while “a Democrat in the White House would bring higher taxes while opposing ‘every idea that gives Americans more authority and more choices and more control over our own lives.’”
So, since homosexuals are one of the few groups against whom discrimination is legal and governmentally sanctioned, does that make them unAmerican? They do not have the choice to enter into legally-binding monogamous relationships in every state, for instance. Until recently, they did not have the choice to make consenual love to their partner without facing criminal consequences. Authority for whom? Choices for whom? Control for whom?
And don’t even get me started on abortion and the loaded word of choice there.
As the “bra”haha of Janet Jackson’s bare breast at the Superbowl growls down to a low boil, I’m going to take the time to here suggest that this little incident is not worth the tittles nor the jots being spent on it.
Janet Jackson’s breast is not an outrage. In fact, it’s quite nice.
The exploding federal deficit, however, is an outrage.
Cutting taxes in the face of it is an outrage.
Over 500 dead since “peace” was declared in Iraq is an outrage.
Over 2 million American workers laid off is an outrage.
Going to war against another nation because of “planned program activities” is an outrage.
Coddling a non-democratically-elected government that made a hero of its top scientist because he stole nuclear secrets from the West and sold them to Iran, Libya and North Korea is an outrage.
Giving a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract to the company the vice-president used to run is an outrage.
Shifting the tax burden from the very wealthy, who can most afford to pay it, to the working and middle classes, who can least afford to pay it, is an outrage.
Giving away billions of tax dollars to an out-of-control medical market and calling it “reform” is an outrage.
Declaring “enemy combatants” in order to lexically circumvent the normative laws of war is an outrage.
Pulling out of the Kyoto environmental talks is an outrage.
Ignoring treaties on ABM technology is an outrage.
Billions of dollars in unpaid dues to the UN–the organization now expected to clean up our mess in Iraq–is an outrage.
Economic advisors who say shipping jobs overseas is good are an outrage.
Drastic security acts that ignore civil rights are an outrage.
A justice department that goes after a $40,000 stock trading indiscretion on the part of a celebrity and all but ignores the fraud of Enron, Global Crossing and World Com is an outrage.
No, Miss Jackson may be nasty, but, as exciting as it was to look at, her stunt was more sad and desperate than it was outrageous. Isn’t it about time that we got upset over things that really matter?
On February 16, 2004 · Comments Off
This morning I was in the library researching a book of photographs by Cole Weston. The book was beautifully designed on high-quality laminate paper to showcase the succinct color quality inherant to Weston’s sensibility. When I came to a Xeroxed page of the photo “Nude in Window, Arizona, 1979,” I was momentarily confused. Then I turned past the page to reveal scratches from an exacto in the shape of the window that, in the photo, the nude woman is seen through.
Cole Weston is, in terms of subject matter, sometimes disappointingly traditional. The beauty of nature and its high degree of order is so tried-and-true as to be pastiche. So, for a convential photographer to be rejected by the most convential thinkers (Kansans) is an indication of the narrow-mindedness that proliferates, even at the university level, which should exhibit the highest level of sophistication and tolerance.
This is no singular event, either. Rachel Crane, librarian of Art and Design at the Ablah Library, has commented that photography is a specific target of vandalism in the collection. That painted nudes do not suffer equally is perhaps an indication that photography is not considered to have the same interpretive element. There is not only no understanding of photography as an art form, but there is also the indication that students cannot distinguish the body in any context besides the sexually explicit. That is undoubtedly one of the contributing reasons that the Rhatigan Student Gallery on campus does not allow nude depictions on its display wall, observable to any passer-by.
I offer this in contrast to the recent stunt of Janet Jackson, which is merely ridiculous, as any grossly inflated event like the Superbowl becomes ridiculous by sucking on its own gluttonous juices. The Weston photograph clearly has a voyeuristic quality. The truncated torso emerges from the dark interior with the same sumptuousness of the Aphrodite of Knidos, or other depictions of Aphrodite lifting the back of her robe to reveal her lauded bottom. In this respect it shares a channeling of sensuality that Jackson obviously intended. But the difference is that the extent of Jackson’s exploration of that sensuality was, “Sex is cool. I really like it lots.”
I’m not claiming that proselytizing is more common now that a born-again Christian is in the White House, but it seems to be seeping into standard business more frequently — or maybe that’s just this month. Here’s a few stories you might have missed since Nipplegate. Did you hear about the Texas pharmacist who refused to fill a valid prescription for emergency morning-after contraception . . . to a rape victim? (See Google News for your favorite media outlet.) On a recent cross-country flight, an American Airlines pilot asked Christians to raise their hands so non-Christians could take the opportunity to ask them about their faith. The pilot also offered to stick around to answer questions afterwards. (Google News sources)
Of course, this environment isn’t that surprising given our current “leader.” Bush called again for federal funding of faith-based charities in his State of the Union speech. (Google News) On Feb. 4, the House kept House Bill 3030 ’s religious discrimination clause: religious groups that receive community-development grants can reject job applicants because of their faith. To quote Bush, “We want to fund programs that save Americans, one soul at a time. . . . So I signed an executive order, an executive order that instructed all federal agencies not to discriminate against religious groups.” But those religious groups can discriminate against hiring you and still receive federal funding.
Your unemployment’s gone, the homeless shelter’s hiring, but you’re not the right faith, so you’re still screwed. Well, you can still hang out there if you don’t mind the atmosphere and whatever they do to non-believers.
“I don’t care what religion it is. Nothing more hopeful than the Word.” (Doesn’t “the Word” imply Christianity, or is that just me?)