« Well the weather outside is frightful | Main | Say you want an answer the answer isn't no »
We don't get no government loans and no one sends a check from home
by anna at 06:57 PM on December 03, 2003
Somebody wrote that the so-called cultural wars are waged by intellectuals. I tend to agree. Despite such polarizing events as the OJ verdict, 2000's election debacle and the current war-let, I think most ordinary folks are pretty much on the same page.
Egghead intellectuals include academics, advocates, pundits, pontificators and partisan politicians. Generally speaking these are rich people with plenty of time to lounge around on their duffs, formulating tortured arguments to support their positions on a variety of matters. All of which share one trait: minimal impact on our daily lives.
Meanwhile, we workaday people's live are consumed not by such abstract debate but by our all too real struggle to make ends meet. We spend our waking hours making money, frittering it away and then fretting about how to get more. Some scrimp, some save, some pimp whores, some go back to school to enhance their earning potential. In the few finance-free moments we enjoy, we pursue sex or rest up. When the morning light comes streaming in, we'll get up and do it again. In this arid soil, apathy takes root.
It's not like we're blithely unaware of the hoo-ha swirling around us though. We here in the DC area are all familiar with it. Partisans of all stripes love to come here and tie up traffic on our roadways. Local cops relish the overtime. We can't wait for them to leave.
These guys favor anarchy. Those guys want cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal freed. These guys want turtles to have unfettered sea access. Others want Third World debt forgiven. Those gals think world bankers are being unfair to mulatto trisexuals with genital warts or something. They all shake their bony fists and unfurl silly banners. Most everyone else turns a deaf ear to their concerns.
Myself I find it arduous to form an opinion on anything. I kind of oppose the death penalty because there's a potential for mistakes. Plus I don't like the way sexism and accidents of geography lead to different punishment for identical crimes. Yet sometimes I revel in executions. I couldn't have been gladder to see Timothy McVeigh go. I will rejoice anew when they cap the DC snipers. And I'm not alone in my ambivalence. Witness the sparce turnout at McVeigh's candlelight vigil. Maybe it was his refusal to repent or his frighteningly stoic demeanor, I dunno.
It's the same way with abortion. Those who favor it try to distance themselves from its nastier aspects, like partial birth abortion. But surely even they wouldn't advocate a mother sacrificing her own life to save an as yet unproven fetus. It might grow up to be McVeigh or Osama, for crying out loud. And if they're so dead set against it, why don't they put their money where their loud mouths are? Why not agree to adopt all the sickly crack babies that go unaborted in their dream world? Any takers?
Just as I thought.
I'll go out on a limb. I favor fishnet stockings, strategically torn, and stiletto heels. That is, so long as I don't have to wear them. I'm sure most of you would agree.
comments (10)
I dunno, I tend to think the average Joe spends too much time watching The Average Joe and not enough time giving a shit about his fellow man, like the transexual you mention. I don't think that the people that aren't thinking about the world aren't thinking about the world because they are busy making ends meet and fucking. I think they aren't thinking about the world because they don't care.
By the way, although "mulatto" was acceptable in my "African American Woman" class in college, my sister assured me that "biracial" is preferred these days. Sorry dude, but I don't want you embarassing yourself. It's so exhausting keeping up with the proper lingo sometimes. I am like, PC freak, and I still fuck up.
by Linz at December 4, 2003 4:44 PM
I think there is a difference between awareness of the world (cultural, politics, etc), and being able to place that knowledge into the larger perspective of history. I think most intellectuals fail to do that, but probably only because it is so difficult to think that the world will exist beyond the fluttering fire of your life has been snuffed, and that sometimes things that suck in the short, are worthwhile and necessary in the long.
Hey Linz/Shan, is octoroon still okay?
by mg at December 4, 2003 5:11 PM
Bonehead proletariats include service clerks, bureaucrats, paper pushers, pooh-poohers, the apathetic and the indifferent. Generally speaking these are hard working people living hand to mouth yet with plenty of time to lounge around on there duffs, eating potato chips and watching TV to support their ignorance on a variety of matters. All of which share one trait: minimal impact on our daily lives.
I'm not exactly sure why you're over-generalizing about and contrasting people who actively insert themselves into a cultural dialogue, against "workaday people" who strive to make ends meet. In contrast to your experience, my experience is that the intellectual academics I know are not rich, spend almost every-waking hour engaged in their research (in other words they voluntarily put in twice as many hours as fellow clock punchers I know), and their efforts have a profound impact on our daily lives - for instance discovering the identity of the SARS virus (major social impact, no money changed hands for the discoverer - his reward was simply "job well done. society thanks you."). Or bringing to light the fact that those born with a clitoris earn approx 2/3 what those born with a penis make for identical jobs. Again, lots of work with minimal or no pay, yet hefty social impact for at least half the people in our society. Ditto for our marriage laws which govern who can establish legal relationships and who can not, based primarily on gross anatomy (clitoral/penis parings ok; penis/penis or clitoral/clitoral pairings forbidden; for the half million or so people for whom gender assignment is not possible based on anatomy - we'll just ignore them altogether).
Anyone can be an engaged intellectual. Brain power is free. One simply has to be have the determination to feed it. I used to think of programming algorithms while washing dishes for $3.35/hour to make ends meet. Self taught knowledge that could be used to earn $100/hour. Yet the egghead intellectuals I know forego large salaries in favor of research that helps society.
by chris at December 4, 2003 6:32 PM
Yeah I know mulatto (as is octaroon, I assume) is an outdated term but I kind of like the way it looks in print. Oh, and it was trisexual, not transsexual.
Chris, I have often said how much your opinions are valued. Here is no exception, but I will say this: I wasn't talking so much about folks on the research/teaching end of academia as the endless (pointless?) commentary you see in the media. To further expand: I read like 4 newspapers every day. Yet there are some terms, like "soft money" and "Kyoto Protocol," that stop me dead in my tracks. This, despite the fact I know campaign finance reform and global warming are important, in some abstract sense. And yes, I did over-generalize a bit here. The end.
by anna at December 4, 2003 6:50 PM
I have a question that I would appreciate opinions on. If the culture wars are fought by the intellectuals (which would probably include endless debates on blogs similar to this one), could a politician, say one of the Democrats, garner attention by pounding into the people that their interests (earning a living, protecting their jobs) are more important than "intellectual" debates like the trisexual's status or preventing two people who love each from getting married. It seems that the Bush administration is expending a lot of energy pushing the conservative agenda on issues like abortion, gay marriage and capital punishment. If the people have more important worries, might it not be a big opening for the Dems that Bush cares more about these than about the things that the people care about?
by Wamitoade at December 4, 2003 11:44 PM
Wamitoade, I’m understanding that you’re asking whether we think a political could attract attention by telling people that earning a living or protecting jobs is more important than the “status” of a trisexual, gay marriage, or capital punishment. Well, I think he could, if he were dealing with “trisexuals”, “gay marriage”, or “capital punishment”. But he would not be dealing with just that.
This October 3rd, President Bush issued a proclamation regarding an event called “Marriage Protection Week.” In it, he said:
“Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America.
“Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.”
So, if any politician were to say that it’s more important to work on job creation than keeping gays from getting married, Bush and the Republicans could just say that working on job creation isn’t important: protecting an “institution” is important. And not just any institution, but a “sacred institution.” Not just any sacred institution, but a sacred institution which would hurt the United States to change (“its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society”). They would also say that they’ve been working hard on making “strong”, “healthy”, and “successful” marriages, and also on making “good parents.” Then they could say, “Come on, what’s more important? Putting more money in your wallet, or making successful marriages and good parents? Aren’t the Democrats being heartless by talking about money instead of families and love?” And then, if you’re the type to believe that stuff, you’d say “Sure, love is more important than money.” And THAT is EXACTLY what the Republicans are telling their supporters even now. Today. Yesterday. Last week, and all last year. They’ve got similar spiels for LGBT issues and capital punishment.
The Republicans already know that the Democrats could at any second whip out a huge campaign about how we should vote for the Democrats because they’re going to take care of our money problems. The Republicans have prepared for that by telling anybody who’s willing to listen that it’s not money that’s important, it’s institutions (SACRED institutions), families, and parents.
Oh yeah, and are our money problems more important than capital punishment? This is what President Bush had to say about capital punishment in a May 2001 press conference (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010511-3.html):
“Q: Why is his (Timothy McVeigh’s) execution so important and the death penalty so important, then?
“THE PRESIDENT: Because it needs to send a signal to anybody who thinks what Timothy McVeigh did was okay, that in this society we're not going to tolerate that kind of heinous act.”
So I predict that he might say, “How could we possibly worry about getting richer when some people out there could be thinking that killing a couple hundred people is okay? We’ve got to make sure that if anyone ever thinks about killing hundreds of people, they will know that it’s not tolerated and you get executed for that kind of stuff. If we stopped executions, would a mass murderer ever stop to think about what he’s about to do? Saving people from maybe getting killed is more important than getting a $50 raise per month.” And if you don’t think too hard about it, it would sound pretty good.
by jean at December 5, 2003 5:25 AM
If I were one to vote, that strategy would appeal to me. Address things that impact us personally, like the horrendous traffic nightmare. Well, it's off for my one hour, 14 mile commute in the pouring sleet.
by anna at December 5, 2003 7:53 AM
Don't want to get into politcs too much here, but I will point out some facts. On the Howard Dean website the four current top stories are about AIDS, Children, Native Americans, and Enron. On the John Kerry website again AIDS, and then three stories about how you can raise money for or wish Kerry happy birthday. On Wesley Clark's website the four featured policies are his Manufacturing Security Plan, Iraq Strategy/National Security, Agenda for People with Disabilities, and Universal Preschool Plan. I'd go on, but I don't think any of the other candidates have a chance. So, of 12 things the candidates are currently concerning themselves with, I'd say that only two were the kind of "universal" or "day to day" important issues you ask about. The reason? Because there are no universal issues, and politicians understand that. You'd perhaps say "children" issues concern everyone, except for the 1/3 of the population that is currently not or does not currently have children. What about health care? It's only an issue for people who don't have any, or those overly concerned with those who don't have any. See what I'm saying? It is an unfortunate need of politicians to focus on issues of importance to their consituents. For the democrats it is things like the environment, health care. For rebuplicans it is things like economy, and security. Why do you think there are distinct parties for Green, Right-to-Life, Marijuana, etc?
by mg at December 5, 2003 8:54 AM
Hey Anna, I was just busting your chops. Besides, sometimes you write sentences that I find are begging to be retooled.
To Wamitoade's point: I find intellectual debates primaryto our existence, and not just about the esoterica of anatomy based marriage status, because we are dependent on and affected by technology. It affects the way we live, it affects the way we communicate, it affects almost everything, thus our values have to be agile enough to cope with the changes - whch involves exploring intellectual territory and solving an endless emergence of problems. This is a general statement but my impression is that conservative republicans tend to argue to preserve the status quo, whereas democrats usually try to take a more progressive (i.e. liberal, unorthodox) approach that incorporates changing information. Perhaps a more relevant example than gay marriage would be stem cells. Research on stem cells (which are otherwise thrown in the trash) will affect your life, and the lives of those you love. But Bush forbids it. That affects our economy, it affects our future, it affects our view and standing in terms of technology. By the way I'd think any protection of marriage act would have to include a clause about protecting marriage from game shows, or is it really good for us to show that you can marry someone you've never met as long as they have a million dollars?
by chris at December 5, 2003 11:45 AM
I know. Now, children's issues. As a father of 3 I'll tell you what the issue is: Child Protective Services. Today's kids have that number on their cell phone speed dial. Try disciplining them.
by anna at December 5, 2003 9:46 PM