33 posts tagged “i heart america”

It's things like this that make me hate women, especially the ones who think they're "feminists."  Oh, not the column itself--the comments.

Stay-at-home moms are "cute."  They're obviously intellectually inferior to working women, too, because, DUH, obviously being at home with kids and chores offers nothing in the way of intellectual stimulation (and, DUH, obviously that's all stay-at-home moms do with their days!).  It follows that stay-at-home moms are women without goals, without a life, obsequious and socially retarded.  It is equally obvious that women who become stay-at-home moms are "rich" (not moms who, as the column itself makes reference to literally can't "afford" to go back to work, even if they wanted to, due to the exorbitant prices of childcare and so forth--for some of us in more rural areas, the cost of transportation is itself prohibitive, and not everyone [yet] has the luxury of working online, as I do--my job effectively makes me a working-stay-at-home mom, which is really ideal for me). 

Oh, and I love the woman who writes that none of the well-educated women she knows don't work.  Where the hell does this woman live? 

God, women like this just do so much to advance opportunity and freedom for all women.  There is nothing that makes me, as a woman, feel more liberated and empowered than being told that I'm "cute" or intellectually inferior and poorly educated because I decided to be a stay-at-home mom. 

The ironic thing about it is that I was just helping a student, right before I read this, with his essay on The Awakening.  I've read that book about 5 times, and personally I've always thought it was stupid.  I don't think Edna Pontellier is notably oppressed by anything other than her own uselessness and incompetence (I understand that is not the generally accepted reading of the novel, and believe me, I caught hell in lit classes more than once for my opinion about it--in general, though, whining about how hard it is to break society's rules doesn't get anyone much mileage with me, although it does make me think of Devo...), but let's say she is.  Let's say Edna's real problem is being held down by all the sexist bastard men in her society.  She, because of her (flighty and weak) personality might be better off today, being told what to do by the female commenters of the International Herald-Tribune, but are we really to pretend that she would have fewer choices?  Or that the prescriptions and judgments laid down by today's society are actually less harsh and confining than what poor old Edna faced?  There is no real difference between being told you're intellectually inferior just because you're a woman and being told you're intellectually infererior because you're a woman who has decided, after surveying all your options, to stay home and take care of your kids.

I think, actually, the thing that infuriates me most about this (because in reality I am reasonably confident in both my intellectual abilities and my education) is that I still hear so many women talk about how "men" and/or the "patriarchal society" judge women's choices.  It's true that they do sometimes.  But no man of my acquaintance has ever believed that I suddenly became illiterate when I decided to stop working for pay.  Of course, no man of my acquaintance would dare.

And why, pray tell, does receiving pay make something worth doing?  I mean, if I was doing a boring, repetitive job that I hated for pay, these women would be so OK with that.  If I'm doing a sometimes boring and repetitive but oftentimes amazing and quite stimulating job that I love for no pay, then I'm like something they have to scrape off their shoe.   This just doesn't make sense to me, except by some standard societal notion that people are only worth their salaries, but I utterly reject that notion and always have. 

Feh.  I've had the satellite TV shut off, so that I don't watch the news anymore, and usually the IHT just doesn't upset me all that much, so things in my life have been relatively calm and happy.  I watch the chard grow.  I read, especially because I'm trying to get as much reading in as possible before the new baby interrupts that.  I walk down to the river--a river that will be dry in just a few weeks since it only has water in it during the runoff.  You know.  That kind of thing.  A nice, peaceable life, in which I get along with people.  And then this.  Damn. 

I will now go back to sticking my head in the sand and teaching my son about evolution, our current lessons revolving around his obsession with prehistoric life.  I take a great deal of pride in the fact that today, when two Mormon missionaries came to visit us, my son offered them each a piece of his Easter chocolate--the last two pieces of it.  I thought that was pretty cool for a 4-year-old.  He loves people and is so generous and kind to people.  The bloody remarkable thing about it is that somehow, despite my own misanthropy, I've taught him that.  I guess other stay-at-home moms, being braindead, don't teach their kids anything at all.  I guess it's just by virtue of the fact that I do work for pay, albeit very part-time, that I'm able to teach him these things.  Stupid people.  I'm done.

Tomorrow, of course--or, rather, later today--is the election.  I keep trying to think positive.  By that I mean that I keep trying to hope that after tomorrow, the name of the next President will be known and we can quit the partisan bickering, the fear-mongering, the hateful invective.

Then, Slate came and sucked the hope right out of me.  Why do I keep reading Slate, anyway?  It's like I'm some kind of masochist.

So, she lives in a blue city in a blue state and then apparently thinks her kids will naturally turn out "tolerant" because that's what liberals are!  Apparently, it did not occur to her that when you are only liberal (and at 8 years old, nonetheless!) because every single person you've ever known is liberal, it doesn't actually say that you're an open-minded type just following your rational mind to the best, most just political positions.  It means you're just doing the same thing everyone around you is doing, which is hardly the picture of themselves that liberals usually have.

Apparently it never occurred to this woman, either, that it's really damned easy to be tolerant of people who think the way you do, regardless of the color of their skin.  Of course, this is also the woman who wrote a piece a while back about how her kids were acting very smug and superior because their family drives a Prius--makes you wonder who they're getting that attitude from.

But, people, when kids are wishing John McCain were dead, they are hearing it from someone else, probably their parents but in this case it's also being reinforced by the entire town being liberal.  The author seems to think that this is nothing to worry about.  I guess she thinks that as adults she and her friends are not responsible for having taught this crap to their kids.  She seems to think this will all end tomorrow, but it won't.  This is just going to get worse because it started with adults acting like children who could not get along, could not reach a compromise, could not see any other point besides their own, didn't even bother to listen, and when they found that their neighbors were going to vote for the other side, they moved to a neighborhood with a tacit political agreement to all vote the same.  If you don't, you're a traitor, though maybe only the kids will give voice to that opinion in public.

So, the parents are vicious partisans who fancy themselves tolerant and open-minded while totally isolating themselves from anyone who thinks differently from them.  What exactly did they expect their kids to turn out like? 

I take my son to vote with me.  For one thing, I don't have a babysitter, but I also want him to get in the habit.  He is only 3, but even when he's 8 I'm not going to expect him to pick a party and attack anyone who dares to choose the opposite one.  He is exposed to political arguments on both sides, and the thing I hope he takes from those are that we still love my uncle, the one who is an unrepentant Reaganite even though his economic ideas are clearly wackadoo, just like we still love my mom even though she has this crazy idea that it's unethical to eat animals and is an obvious bleeding-heart (mainly we love her because she can't lie at all so it's really easy to take all her money at poker--just kidding!  We love her for other reasons, too).  What I want my son to know more than anything is that he is free to make up his own mind about every issue, and that he has a responsibility as a citizen to know as much as he can about the issues and make up his mind regardless of any party doctrine, regardless of what his friends think is cool.  What I want him to know is that people can disagree with you and still be good people, even fantastic people, who simply see the world a bit differently or give different values priority.  Despite the fact that my husband and I are socially and economically somewhat conservative (though not Republican), we agree about this, and yet this notion of being free to decide your own ideals and to still love your wackadoo Reaganite uncle, this is supposed to be the essence of being a liberal.  What could be more open-minded and tolerant than that?

But since we are conservative (or traditional or old-fashioned or however you want to look at it) in our parenting as well, you bet your ass that if our kid said some of those things, he would be in for a serious discussion about his disrespect for others.  We would not just shrug and let him eat his candy.  Even my mom the bleeding-heart wouldn't have done that.  He is free to choose his own politics or religion or even become a vegetarian if he wants; he is not free to wish the death of another person. 

No, people, no.  I am in total despair for the next four years.  At this point, the hatefulness and fear on both sides do not bode well.  It isn't right to just decide that everyone who disagrees with you is a racist or a bigot or greedy because they don't like taxes (or, from the opposite side, a babykiller or a socialist or whatever).  At the very least, could we start watching what we say around our kids?  Could we not teach our kids that it's OK to hate people who have different ideas?  Please?

So, I don't know who this Bill Bishop guy is, and I am not interested in looking him up right now, but he has been writing this column called "The Big Sort" in Slate for a while now.  I linked to one of the essays yesterday.  Today, I noticed another good one.  I don't know what the hell is going on over at Slate, because heretofore (and with the exceptions of Fred Kaplan and Dahlia Lithwick) I had assumed the sole purpose of Slate was to irritate the fuck out of me.  Yet, this Bill Bishop is not irritating me.  Curious.

I quote here his conclusion:

"The simple need for mixed social relations is lost to Americans, who increasingly live in homogenous communities and attend like-minded churches.

It's apparently lost to Congress, too. We're living with the result."

This is true of both sides, too--it isn't just that the rednecks are isolating themselves with their shotguns and deer hides.  Democrats tend to do it, too.  The Internet exacerbates matters when people only read the sites that they know they will agree with, unless they read a site they disagree with for the express purpose of being a troll.  I've bitched before about how the liberal idea of "diversity" is so shallow that it is based entirely on appearance; diversity means we have friends who are different colors than we are or come from different countries, and that's great so long as we all think almost exactly alike and read the same books and see the same movies and have the same dislikes as well.  Those on the right don't really claim to give a damn about diversity, although you find a surprising amount of it in Western rural towns.  Most of the small Western towns I've lived in have a strange array of hardcore conservatives and hippie people trying to recreate the Nearings' good life.  Or there are artists who need to retreat from the world so that they can grow their own marijuana and mushrooms or something. 

Anyway. 

It was really fun to watch Bill Maher on the Daily Show tonight.  Boy.  So, after the shill for Obama, he makes the claim (and I'm simplifying it just a bit, not much) that anyone who does not agree with the goal of turning America into a European country is a "stupid redneck."  Ah, such an intellectual.  Such a liberal, open-minded, progressive view of things.  Yes, of course, if someone doesn't agree with you, the problem is their intelligence!  How could I not have seen it!

And, really, how could you not see that there could be other reasons for not wanting to turn America into a European country.  I think the main one is the very stupid redneck reason that we're not a European nation.  I realize you didn't mean literally--or, well, maybe you did.  Who knows?  But, see, despite the fact that we have some shared cultural history and certainly the whole Judeo-Christian tradition going on, America has diverged from Europe.  Our histories are not the same, our cultures are no longer the same, and while I realize that you find the American culture inferior to the European one, some of us do not.  America has problems aplenty; nobody is denying that.  But the Europe-worship from liberals seems a bit stupid to me.  I don't want to bash Europe here; that isn't the point.  The point is that Europe is Europe, and it's OK for us to not be Europe.  Or Canada.  Or anyone else.  How has it come to be standard liberal doctrine that America has no worthwhile culture of its own but should just mold itself into the shape of a different country altogether?  How has it come to be accepted that European culture is inherently good and worth emulating (well, admittedly this isn't entirely new; America has intermittently felt this inferiority complex, especially in the art world)?  I look for the evidence of this, and people toss around words like "sophisticated" but what is the underlying basis for this?  I can't see that there is a valid one. 

Slate actually had a decent essay (shocking, I know) about the split in American culture related to American Protestantism between those who believe the path to heaven is through personal responsbility and those who believe it is through reforming the public sphere.  I somehow doubt that it's going to change most people's minds that those who believe differently are "stupid" but I think it's worth recognizing that both sides have some validity.  It also points up just how deeply religion influences our society; I think when the effect runs this deep, to the very core of our ethics, we're not talking about something we can just give up and walk away from.  Europe went through different religious splits and fights and came out the other side differently.  We can't just become Europe, not when this history is so basic to American culture.

Bah.   

I am also finding it ridiculous that many of the same people who cursed Congress for not listening to its constituents by going ahead with the invasion of Iraq despite broad (though by no means unanimous) opposition are now cursing Congress for "worrying about their chances at reelection" instead of passing the bailout bill.  Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't the fact that they are "worrying about their chances at reelection" indicative that they are doing what they believe their constituents want?  Because their concern would be that passing the bailout bill would anger their voters, presumably because their voters do not want to see this thing passed.  I realize this does not excuse the fact that they normally do not listen to the constituents, but you can't be very serious about demanding that Congress listen to the demands of the public when you agree with those demands and then ignore the demands of the public when you do not agree with the public's wishes.  Of course, many of the same people doing this right now also think that anyone who does not agree with them are stupid rednecks.  So, I guess Congress is only supposed to listen to the demands of its smart constituents.  I'm sure they will be able to tell who you are by the fact that you, what?, don't have a car up on blocks in your front yard or something. 

Meh.  Finger-pointing sure is fun and productive, right? 

I do think more people should come around to my perspective that a little hard times would be good for many people in this country.  I can't articulate this coherently yet, but I think very many people in this country have really no idea how basically good they have it.  It isn't just that we live in a country where things like indoor plumbing and safe drinking water is constantly available from your tap.  It isn't just that we have come so far towards eliminating diseases that were responsible for most infant mortality that people now think it's OK to not vaccinate their kids--vaccinations that people in many countries would be grateful for because they can remember what damage diseases like pertussis and polio do, a lot of people in this country just grouse about them.  It isn't, either, that we have huge tracts of land preserved for public use or that things like central heating are basically available to everyone (not the case in Japan--you have not really learned to live with cold until you go through a winter in a Japanese house, coughing up your black lung crap from the kerosene heater constantly at your side, a heater that fails to really make the room warm anyway).  There is also the assumption of easy credit and material consumption.  We don't just want a fancy toaster--no!  We have a right! to a fancy toaster!  This is the unpopular view, I know, but I just think that maybe if we had to go through life for a while with credit not being so easy and cheap and we had to learn to live without the biggest satellite TV package or, for that matter, the biggest TV, maybe it would be good for us.  Maybe people would learn to live with less and appreciate the things they already have.  Maybe if the TV breaks and they can't afford to replace it, maybe they'll spend that time doing something that is ultimately more satisfying and productive.  All things are possible when this kind of shit goes down.  Maybe if people took some time to appreciate the things that Wall Street can't ruin, maybe people would be happier.  It isn't unheard of, you know, people being happy with less.  It can happen, even in America, a country that used to glorify thrift and making do.  It seems all you hear anymore is people bitching.  I'm a cheeseball, I know, for ending every day with a private acknowledgement that I'm, for lack of a better and nonreligious term, blessed.  My life is rich, without much money.  Recognizing that means I feel even less need to spend money to make my life feel full.  We conserve, we reuse and repurpose, we make things do, and still we are happy and we feel blessed.  I think the people of our fair nation, if they let themselves, might find that it feels pretty good.  Not in a smug way, just in a good, Lake Wobegone kind of way. 

Wow.  I really thought that bailout package was going to pass.  These are exciting times!  I am so ready for the Dust Bowl!

Seriously.  I have several hundred pounds of fruit preserved in my basement.  My garden is still cranking shit out, thanks to unseasonably warm weather.  We're buying a pig from a neighbor, a pig that will be humanely killed and butchered soon to provide us with much porky goodness (T is going hunting, too, but hunting is always a gamble).  We are not some of those people who took out mortgages that they really couldn't afford (of course, we live in a small Idaho town in order to find a house we can afford).  We have reasonably good jobs, jobs that should be fairly secure.  I mean, the day people stop eating at KFC is truly the end of the world.  Besides, T isn't even 30 yet, so whatever ugly things have happened to our retirement savings are not likely to affect us anytime soon. 

Fuck 'em on Wall Street.  Let 'em burn.  Let everyone who thought that this system was a good idea rot.  I'm not even interested in the regulation/deregulation argument because I think the entire system of global capitalism and corporations is morally bankrupt and unsustainable.  On the other hand, I think if you're going to say that you support the "free market" or at least the bizarre iteration of that we have in America (not just in America--the WTO operates on similar principles, albeit more "free" than the American market in many respects), then you damn well should and that means you don't get $700 billion for your severance package when you fuck up.  Paulson fucked up, AIG fucked up, Bernanke has fucked up, whoever is in charge of Wachovia has fucked up.  I have nothing to give to them except a kick in the ass as I shove them out the door.  And don't just blame the Republicans; while Republicans are responsible for some of the deregulation, the Democrats espouse a very similar position on global capitalism and the "free market," even though they seek to regulate it somewhat more than the Republicans.  Some of their regulations might have prevented the current crisis, true, but the pursuit of this type of economy and this type of business has its own problems.  Chocolate has melamine in it--melamine, for fuck's sake--because corporations pursue maximum profits in the global game by making everything in China and shipping it around the world.  And they have to, really, it's part of the corporate deal. 

And I'm getting tired of the finger-pointing.  Note to Republicans, though this has been said to you before:  If you believe in individual responsibility above all, then you need to take that responsibility, too, not just lower-income people who have too much credit card debt.  Note to Democrats:  Perhaps you have a post office to rename?  A nonbinding resolution about the status of National Enchilada Day to feverishly debate?  No?  Well, for the record, you could have passed that bill if you had shown any decisive leadership on it at all.  You, like the Republicans, fail to have the courage of your alleged convictions, so you are no better than they are.  And, actually, much of the deregulation legislation that is now being widely blamed for the meltdown had bipartisan support at the time of its passing.  Besides, while Wall Street may not need deregulation, deregulation is not always a bad idea. 

The assumption that we need regulations, though, is tied up with the assumption that we have to do business in this way.  If you assume, for example, that large feedlots are how we must produce our meat supply and large, commercial slaughterhouses are the only way that we can process that meat, then, sure, it needs regulation.  On the other hand, an entirely different model does exist, one that is hampered by current regulations and one that leads, based on current evidence, to less contamination of the food supply.  Unfortunately, for someone, it does not lend itself to the stock market or to very high profits.  But it is only if you assume that we need those things that you assume that we need the giant, out of control corporations that we have and only then that deregulation becomes a potentially bad thing. 

On the other hand, people are fucking idiots.  It is quite conceivable that most people are not capable of the level of individual responsibility that the alternatives would require.  It is true that people become comfortable and lazy and dependent on large systems to take care of everything for them.  This is the conservative argument (not Republican--conservative, and yes, there is a difference), and I think they're right.  Why take responsibility for preventing, say, your home from being burnt down by a forest fire when you could just wait for it to burn down and then get compensated by the government, exposing your family, your neighborhood, and a whole bunch of firefighters to various risks in the process?  On the other hand, conservatives are wrong that everything comes down to the choices you make and none of it comes down to just sheer dumb luck.  Any upper-class person who claims that the only things that got them there was their hard work and smart choices is full of shit; luck and "fate" or something like it are always there.  So, liberals are right that sometimes people need help and, as a society, we are both morally obligated and pragmatic to help those who have had tough breaks.  But how to find the balance? 

Yeah, well, I have strawberries to get into the freezer.  I'll see y'all at the Paulson-effigy bonfire later, K?

I think the Democrats just might lose this election, at least the Presidential one.  That will be a shame, but Democrats have only themselves to blame.  This year it should have been a cakewalk.  And I do realize that if Obama loses, the Internet will light up with a thousand reasons why it happened, and all of them will blame those goddamned Christian right-wing redneck motherfuckers who live in the flyover wasteland that constitutes most of America.

Because that's what they're already doing and have been doing for 8 years, and yet somehow they think those rednecks don't notice.

The belief, taken very much as an act of faith and declaimed shrilly and passionately without much in the way of evidence, that Christians are stupider people or incapable of grasping the complexities of scientific thought is ignorant, obnoxious, and assholish.  Also, it's costing Democrats votes.

The statistic that "80% of Americans are urban" which is frequently bandied about to make it look as though America were being entirely ruled by rural minorities who have somehow, despite a lack of numerical or economic strength, managed to wrest power from the majority is ridiculous.  Yes, according to the Census, 80% of Americans do live in urban areas.  But the Census defines "urban" as having a population of greater than 2500.  Not exactly Manhattan.  (On a related note, the fun set of numbers we sometimes see proclaiming urbanites to be the true green people because they are said to consume less energy, primarily because they have smaller living spaces and drive less often, are idiot numbers.  They fail to take into account so many things:  airports, which are usually outside of the city limits; food production, which usually takes place well away from the city; the fact that people with a higher income almost invariably have a bigger "carbon footprint" simply because they consume much more, and people in urban areas are wealthier than those in rural areas, overall; that the energy itself is being produced, which requires some energy, outside of the city.  And so on.  Idiot numbers.  This from Democrats who accuse rednecks of being too stupid to care about facts and evidence; if we are to believe in the supremacy of the goddamned numbers, then let's make sure our numbers mean what we're trying to make them mean, OK?  Fuckers.)

Democrats these days remind me of one of the moms on...what's that show?  "Trading Spouses" I think.  Weird show.  Anyway, I saw once this episode where one of the moms is a California vegan, and the other mom lives in the Louisiana bayou and hunts 'gators and shit.  This was brilliant programming, because the culture clash was immediate and severe.  I can almost guarantee as well that the vegan family votes D and the bayou family votes R if they can be assed to vote at all.  Here comes the vegan who tries, unsuccessfully, to make all the bayou people become vegans.  Here comes the redneck who goes out of her way to cook vegan food for her Cali "family" including a vegan jambalaya (which...I can't imagine) which they won't eat because it's too spicy.  Her feelings are visibly hurt by the fact that this family is entirely certain of their moral righteousness and will not consider that a person might still be a good person even if she eats cute little chickens.  The vegan mom is caught on camera abusing the pet dog of the bayou family; when he pees in the house, she chokes him so hard he's whimpering and wheezing.  It was terrible.  But, then!  The shocker!  We get to know more of her family back in Cali, and she's a regular fascist, this one.  She is in total control of the family.  She made her husband turn vegan.  Well, entirely aside from just making him vegan, she seems to have completely castrated the poor fella so that now if he has any kind of thought or dream of his own, it meets with ridicule and disapproval from her.  Her kids, much the same.  She instructs them that they can't cry if they don't like the way the $50,000 is distributed at the end, but then she's the one who starts crying because the bayou lady had the temerity to give some of the money to the long-suffering husband and kids.  The bayou folks, on the other hand, really not fascist.  More like, well, if you want to be vegan, that's cool, but we eat meat.  Live and let live. 

So, on the one hand, the Democrats usually do better at managing the economy.  Also, there is the abortion thing; certainly I'm pro-choice, although I really rather think many people who call themselves "pro-choice" are actually pro-abortion, which is a different thing.  To me, being pro-choice means that women have a choice, which means they might also choose NOT to abort, but this is anathema in some circles these days.  And, seriously, Democrats who suggest that Palin should have had an abortion instead of having a Down's baby--you can go fuck off.  You do not have the moral right to tell someone that their baby would be better off dead.  Not ever, not for any reason. 

But the Democrats hate my lifestyle, hate the town where I live, hate my friends and most of my family, hate the fact that while I am not Christian I also don't hate Christians, hate hate hate and seem pretty filled with fascist rage that the entire nation does not want or value the exact same things that they do.  So why should I vote for them?   And when, exactly, did the left become so hateful? 

The even sorrier thing about this whole situation is that a lot of Republicans out here in Redneck-Shitsville are impressed with Obama as far as personal character and integrity.  This election is likely not going to come down to that.  I think this is going to come down, not to the fabled "culture wars" of past, but to simple matters of lifestyle.  For the most part, people are not going to vote for people who adamantly hate everything about them and their lifestyle.  If Obama wasn't associated by party with hateful people, he would have a really good chance out here.

Just as Democrats tend to associate Republicans with only their most extreme elements (Democrats for some reason tend to think that all Republicans are Christian extremists, and that is simply not true--they are a very vocal fringe element), Republicans tend to do the same with Democrats.  Honestly, both extremes are hateful and frightening and loathsome and fascist, the left extreme and the right extreme.  It's as if the Republicans are rubber and the Democrats are glue and everything the Dems accuse the Reps of bounces off of them and sticks on you and then you become that thing you hated.  Doesn't anyone realize that extremists and idiots get more airtime than normal people because they're sensational?

America has complex and sometimes infuriating issues with religion but what kind of idiot do you take me for if you hold up France as a moral exemplar on this point?  I follow the news, man.  What France has going on is religious suppression.  America is trying--usually successfully--a different model wherein we are all free to wear our personal beliefs on our sleeves...or license plates...or heads...and learn to live with each other that way.  America has complex and often infuriating issues with race, but, again, I don't see where France or Germany is the moral example we're meant to be following, and sure the hell not Japan.  And, believe me, a lot of Americans like myself are kind of isolationists--we no more want to be meddling about in the world's business than you apparently want us to (although, when push comes to shove, a lot more countries want us meddling with them than will admit it, because at the very least they like to know they can depend on our military to come and get them out of a scrape *sigh*).

Man, I'm just so sick of all the hate and rage that seems to consume people anymore.  I used to be consumed by the same hate and rage.  It's so toxic, though, physically and emotionally and on a social level.  Nothing kills civil society like hate and rage.  I hate to lose my old punk-rock edge, but I'm just not that angry anymore.  Most people, all the world 'round, are not especially bad people and maybe not especially good people, either.  This isn't just Americans--it's everyone.  There are some really good people in every country, including America, and some really terrible ones, but most people are neither.  And it isn't a bad thing that different people have different values, but we have to learn to listen well enough to negotiate how to live with those different values in a common space, for a common good.  I don't expect everyone in America to value the exact same things I do.  What I expect is that I'm not called an idiot or a redneck because of them. 

Besides, we've had a D-controlled Congress for two years now, and the best they've managed to do is rename a bunch of post offices.  Silly Democrats.  This election should have been yours, all yours, but I don't know anymore.  And don't come crying to me about it.

What is the most annoying stereotype people say about the country or place where you're from?

About New Mexico:  "Oh, do you need a passport to come to the U.S., then?  Wow, you speak really good English!"  And so forth.  One of my friends from NM went to Chicago and someone actually asked her if her family followed the buffalo.  She was only in 4th grade at the time, and she was totally confused.  We don't even have buffalo in NM, let alone follow them.  We actually shop at supermarkets there, like most Americans.  Because we are Americans.  It gets so bad at times that one of NM's senators had the US Congress pass some resolution to make a special "New Mexico is a State!" Day.  I think it's in June.  We celebrate it by kicking up our feet with a nice cold margarita and arguing the finer points of living in teepees.  (Just as an aside, the native people of New Mexico do not and never did live in teepees.  Just so we're clear.)

About Arkansas:  Oh, all the ones about the South.  Yes, we're all members of the KKK.  We all used to own slaves and wish we still did.  We all marry our siblings when we're still teenagers.  Etc.  Pick your stereotype.  At least the stereotypes about New Mexico are stupid but essentially harmless.  The stereotypes that let all non-Southerners dismiss people on intellectual, emotional, and moral levels--those are harmful stereotypes.  My dad used to pick up on it when someone had the idea that anyone with a Southern accent was a half-wit bigot and play up his accent, making it thicker and thicker, until the crucial moment when he would demonstrate that he was actually smarter than they were (and not a bigot, btw). 

About rural America:  These are quite similar to the ones about the South.  Yeah, none of us out here care about the environment the way you incredibly superior urbanites do.  We are also bigots.  We blindly follow the words of our church leaders, because we are very stupid.  We vote exclusively Republican, for the same reason.  We carry guns and drive trucks because we either have penis envy (women) or are concerned that we have small penises (men), and not because they are useful tools at all.  We are hateful and spiteful and all up in your business all the time about every little thing.  Also, apparently urbanites don't gossip, because I hear that a lot, that small-town people gossip.  OK.  You get the idea.  It's all ridiculous and stupid and can be harmful, because, again, it allows urban people to totally dismiss rural people on intellectual, emotional, and moral levels.  Don't think that's true?  Oh, well, go read "Urban Archipelago" and see what I mean.  Yeah, rural people can read, actually. 

About America, in general:  I think we all know these ones, too.  I used to make my ESL students, at the end of their second semester in American university, write an essay that gave some of the stereotypes that they had of America and whether or not they had found those to be true during their stay here.  Those essays were quite illuminating.  Of course, many of them were along the lines of, "I thought all the women would look like [pick a movie star--Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan came up the most often], but actually some American women are really ugly."  And the Russians all seem to have come to the US with the impression that Americans are fat and lazy and then found out that, actually, people here are very "sportif."  Heee.  Apparently some of my Russian students speak French (also, most of the Russians had very definite opinions about American drinking--we either drank too much or not enough or just in the wrong way, but our alcohol habits came up a lot in the Russian papers). 

But a lot of them were along the lines of "Americans don't really care about anything" or "In America, everyone is equal" or "In America, there is no rigid hierarchy" and overall they found all of those to be untrue.  My Japanese students in particular didn't know how to handle the fact that the US has a surface equality--we call professors by their first names, for example--but it's only on the surface.  Japanese students tended to either keep Japanese-ish formality in their interactions with others, which made it hard for them to make friends and made their professors uncomfortable, or they went way too far and took the surface equalities for fact.  One thing no student ever wrote but that I basically inferred from the sum of their papers is that they think that American culture either does not exist or exists only on the surface.  Europeans and Asians alike are guilty of this.  They all think that since America is "young" compared to their cultures and also has a very superficial superficiality to it, that there is nothing behind it, no substance or depth.  It's an attitude that I've ridiculed before, but it's one that even some Americans unthinkingly hold, especially ones who are critical of the nation of their birth.  But it's patently incorrect.  American culture certainly has roots in Europe, especially the Enlightenment, but it's wrong to think that the US is merely offering a superficial take on what is essentially European culture.  The things we care about are thus not the same things that people in other cultures care about, but it's false to say that Americans don't care about anything. 

The thing is that these stereotypes about America don't harm me particularly; for the most part, I don't give a fig what people in other countries think of us.  Holding these stereotypes did greatly affect my students' abilities to interact appropriately with Americans, though, and colored their time here.  I don't especially care, on a day-to-day basis, what urbanites think of me, or Northerners, or whatever.  Stereotypes prevent real interaction and real learning, though.  And that's kind of sad, especially when (just as an example) Democrats need some votes from the South and/or the rural West, people they have nothing but contempt for, contempt so complete that they think we can't or don't even read the insults they hurl at us.  But here's a tip:  If you want someone to vote for your party or your agenda, you might not ought to call them bigots and treat them like they're just too stupid to even talk to.  At the very least, recognize that this behavior makes you a bigot.  Mmmmm-kay?

What does it mean to you to be patriotic?

Ummmmmmmm........getting drunk and then lighting a dead tree out in the yard on fire by shooting bottle rockets off.  Sweet!

Also, buying my son a $0.69 miniature American (made-in-China) flag while we were shopping because he is under the mistaken impression that it's a colorful fan, and he was hot, I guess.  Actually he knows it's a flag, but he thought it was a flag-fan.

I don't know, man.  I don't really know what it means to "love America."  I like living here, at least in the part of America where I live.  If I didn't like it well enough, I suppose I wouldn't have come back.  I like American music, from jazz to bluegrass to rock.  I like American music best, baby, and certainly more than that sissy British stuff.  I think the ideals that America was founded on are good ones, and it upsets me when we deviate too much from them.  I find the color combination of heroic red, pure white, and navy blue to be aesthetically pleasing, and bald eagles are some cool muthafekkin birds. 

I would go so far as to say that I love American music.  I would say that I love American literature.  I love the Rocky Mountains.  Certainly, especially since returning from Concrete Nation (aka Japan), I love the vast tracts of public forest and grasslands and the rivers that are more or less natural and public and available for fine, fine swimming and fishing.  I love the backyard BBQ party, and I love road trips, the kind of road trips I think you can only really have in America (maybe Canada, if you can make it past Roosville).  I love Southern food and the old ladies who cook the most amazing pie you ever tasted or could imagine.  For that matter, I love fried pie.  Fried pie...it even sounds delightful, doesn't it?  I even love Frito pie, though only on a hot day after swimming, eating it while driving down the road with my hair still damp and uncombed, hanging my bare feet out the truck window while listening to Johnny Cash. 

In the end, the country you grow up in is the one tied up in all your memories, isn't it? 

I'm not sure that any of this amounts to patriotism, because I have no real idea of what it would mean to love "America."  The idea of America?  The government?  The culture?  America's citizens?  Obviously there are many things about our government that I find stupid, irritating, vexing, and outright enraging--same with our culture and our citizenry. 

Well, at any rate it is clear that I do not love my country the way Stephen Colbert does, so I think I'm going to have to answer no.

Also, I sometimes eat Vegemite, seditious wench that I am. 

OK, I've been puzzling over the health care plans put forth by Clinton and Obama (and Edwards, not that it matters anymore).  I've read them.  I've read commentaries on them.  And there are still some things I don't get.

How are these requirements that insurance suddenly become universal (in that no one can be denied on the basis of preexisting conditions and so forth) and also affordable supposed to work?  I mean, as far as I can tell, both plans are still working through mostly private insurers--that is, insurance companies that exist to make profit.  I think that a) the insurance companies are going to put up one hell of a fight about that and b) Congress and the courts won't go for it anyway, because requiring companies to do this sort of thing seems like a government intrusion into business that no one will actually approve.

Also, how exactly are we going to mandate (Clinton does; Obama not, apparently) that everyone buy insurance of some kind without also having pretty far-reaching solutions for the growing lower classes?  I understand Clinton wants to mandate that everyone buy insurance but at the same time index the premiums to income--but we're talking mostly about families who are already stretched to the breaking point.  Real wages haven't gone up in my lifetime; we're losing jobs; we're in a bloody recession!  There are already plenty of us who can technically afford health insurance but still cannot actually afford to go to the doctor for simple things like strep throat*.  I don't see this helping that situation, although they claim that they are going to reduce health-care costs at the same time.  But it is not at all clear to me how exactly this is supposed to happen. 

I understand this has been compared to requiring car insurance, which we already do.  Except that there are actually a lot of people out there who flout that mandate because they either cannot afford or cannot get car insurance.  You can require people to do things that they still do not do--I know this well, as I have a 2-year-old in my house.  Paul Krugman is arguing that Clinton's plan, by mandating that all the poor schleps out there further stretch their budget by buying some kind of health insurance, will get us universal health care.  Mmmm, I doubt it.  It will likely get nearly everyone to be insured, yes, but if they still can't afford to go to the doctor when they need to, I don't think it's much of a victory.

I thought--silly me--that the idea behind universal health care was that all people would be covered and be able to afford to actually use the services of health care providers.  Unless Clinton and/or Obama suddenly comes up with radical plans to greatly reduce the already plentiful economic burdens on those of us who exist between the median income and the poverty line, I really don't see this helping very much. 

Am I too pessimistic, or am I missing some key part of their plans?  O wise readers, please tell me it's one or the other (or both) because otherwise, this poo just stinks.

*Last year, we (my family) were in this position.  This year we're a little better off.  The main difference is not that we have more money but that T's employer offers flexible spending accounts (which Hillary does not approve of, or so I hear) that allow us to deposit a portion of each of his paychecks into a special account we can use for medical expenses.  You get a tax break by doing this, but the tax break doesn't actually save us any money because our tax bracket is already a negative percent.  All it does for us is ensures that there is money for medical expenses.  We don't miss the $34 or whatever per paycheck, and then the money is there when we need it.  However, we don't miss that money mostly because we are excessively, obsessively frugal, and I believe a lot of families in our income bracket would miss it.

The news is out:  Obese people and smokers cost health care systems less money over their lifetimes than thin, "healthy" people do.  

Initial response:  So, I guess all those people who claim to have a virulent hatred of the obese because of the costs to the health care system and the increase in premiums for "healthy" people are going to have to find a new justification for their feelings.  I always thought it was a rather selfish and shallow and unnecessarily monetary justification anyway, but now it's also untrue. 

Second response:  Well, it makes bloody sense, doesn't it?  If the nonobese, nonsmoker types live longer than the others, then over a lifetime, they probably do cost more. 

But wait.  Thin, "healthy" people only live 4 years longer (on average, of course) than obese people?  Four measly years?  So, I'm thinking the people who claim to have seething, roiling hatred of the obese because it's ruining their health and shortening their lives need to find a new justification, as well.  (This, anyway, is added to the CDC's study that demonstrated that overweight people have less mortality than people in the "normal, healthy" weight range.  Favorite takeaway quote:  "Counting deaths is not an exact science."  Really?  Because I would have thought counting deaths is pretty straightforward--you either are dead, or you're not.  Unless you're UNdead, of course, but presumably the undead among us did not get counted, as I doubt they rely on traditional health care services.)

Third response:  "Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives..."  Ah, no.  I have to object to the use of "save" there.  See, the rub of the matter is that we're all going to die.  Some of us will die of heart disease, some in knife fights, some by getting hit by the proverbial bus, some of us will be fortunate enough to die while we're in one of the Kama Sutra positions.  But preventing obesity will not save anyone's life--they might die later than they otherwise would have, or they might not.  They might die of a stroke instead of diabetes, although that is impossible to know. 

No, sorry.  If you want to hate on the obese, that's your business, of course, but it is not right to hate on them for economic reasons or because you (disingenuously) claim to want to "save" their lives.  If you want to hate on the obese, do so honestly.  Admit that obesity disgusts you, because you think obese people are immoral and engaging in at least two (and possibly more) of the 7 Deadlies and utterly lack self-control.  Admit that you're afraid you'll catch it and be unable to fit into your jeans.  It's alright.  Most people will understand, as those are similar to the reasons most people dislike the obese and want to "help" them. 

That doesn't mean there is no good reason to prevent obesity when it is possible to do so.  It seems to be that obese and even overweight people, in general, are less healthy overall while they are alive.  It is possible that the quality of life suffers for many obese people, although that's hard to measure (and it is entirely possible that lower quality of life is directly related to being discriminated against).  But those things hardly warrant the bigotry and the invasive measures our government is undertaking to prevent "the epidemic."

Oh, and P.S., America isn't the #1 country for obesity anymore, it appears.  You know why?  Because we suck at everything.  Ha Ha Ha.