Month: July 2004

Could it be Chief Wiggum? The evidence is out there, a reader informs me:

From the Beer Baron episode:

Banner (Robert Stack-like incoming police chief): Well, what are you waiting for? Somebody to kiss you goodbye?
Wiggum (wistfully): Well… no, no, no… I guess not…

From the episode where Ned’s wife dies:

(Homer prepares a video promoting Ned Flanders’ availability:)
Homer: But don’t take my word for it. Listen to this testimonial.
Wiggum: [on tape] Oh I would date Ned in a second if I was a woman or gay. He looks like a cuddler, that Ned. I, I like that. I like to be held, I like to be pampered.

From the Marge on the lam episode:

Wiggum: Aw, just get one of those inflatable women. But make sure it’s a woman, though, because one time I … heh.

And wiggum, of course, is a trendy homo: he’s a bear! Some Simpsons enthusiast has even put together all the gay references in the series. You can find it here. For the record, it’s probably Patty Bouvier.

“Don’t apologize for your response to the Monday night program of speakers at the DNC. You got the big story, while most others did not. Kerry has adopted the tone and content of the pro-war liberals, and has gotten to the center first. It’s the real news of the convention, and was neither altogether predictable, nor inevitable. And he is able to impose that discipline on the Democratic party. The Republicans deride the seriousness of Kerry’s choice, preferring to call it a “makeover.” The Democrats prefer not to think about it very seriously since many don’t actually agree with the choice. Only someone like yourself, who is ideologically independent, actually saw with clarity what happened. Your companions on the right make fun of you for being naive. Tell them to shove it.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

THANKS: A sincere and deep word of thanks to all of you who have contributed so far in this pledge week. By being so positive about the Democrats this week, I haven’t exactly picked the smartest moment to ask for support. But, hey, I figure if you like this blog, it cannot be because you agree with me all the time. I’ve yet to find a single reader who does. So thanks for your open minds and generosity. It has helped keep this completely independent website running for over four years now – an achievement for the new medium in itself. If you haven’t donated yet, and would like to, the details are here.

Someone is due to come out on the Simpsons this season, according to its producers. Who will it be? It cannot be Waylon Smithers: he’s already out. Patty, Marge’s sister? Carl, Homer’s workplace buddy? Jimbo, Bart’s school bully? My own favorite: Groundskeeper Willie. No straight man has that good a body at his age. Dark horse: Ned Flanders. He’s a born-again with a very well-manicured mustache. Hmmm. Any other suggestions?

THE CRAWFORD WIVES: A below-the-belt but relatively amusing NARAL ad.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Europeans mock American religiosity. But American religion, for all its attendant idiocies and cruelties, has never prevented Americans from acting pragmatically. Secular Western European intellectuals, however, have their own version of religion. It is a social-democratic religion that deifies international organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and, above all, the U.N. Not NATO, which is about waging war, and which has for that reason been the target of much European criticism in recent years; no, the NGOs are about waging peace, love, brotherhood, and solidarity, and, as such, are, for the elites of Western Europe, beyond criticism, for they embody Western Europe’s most cherished idea of itself and of the way the world works, or should work. The elites’ enthusiasm for these institutions, whether or not they are genuinely effective or even admirable, is a matter of maintaining a certain self-image and illusion of the world that is intimately tied up with their identity as social democrats; America’s unforgivable offense, as Kagan notes, is that it challenges that image and that illusion; and the degree to which the reality of America is distorted in the Western European media is a measure of the desperate need among Western European elites to preserve that self-image and illusion.” – from Bruce Bawer’s excellent review-essay, “Hating America.”

GOP GAY-BAITING: Check out the top right-hand picture of Edwards and Kerry on this Republican site, challenging the Democratic convention. They make it look as if Edwards and Kerry are about to lip-lock. This has been a mild tactic so far, but it’s getting blatant. And it’s another indication that gay-baiting is now a central plank of the GOP.

I’ve been reading the blogs from the actual convention and I have to sya they’re telling me nothing new or interesting. Here’s a particularly desperate missive from Reason’s usually excellent blog, trying to find something to write about:

One Exceedingly Trivial Thing You Probably Didn’t Know About Larry King. He doesn’t walk, he sashays — left hand on hip, pinkie and ring-finger sticking out at dramatic angles, as he swivel-shoulders down the hallway with his jacket collar half flipped up. Looks like a 70-year-old former Teddy Boy who is very comfortable with his feminine side.

Sooo glad I know that. In Boston, hacks outnumber delegates by four to one. Mickey is reduced to quoting cab drivers. Jonah is writing about his hotel. What a complete waste of time and money. Look, I think these conventions should be televised for two hours a night on the networks. Both political parties should have a chance to present themselves and their candidates as effectively as possible. But the notion that being there has any real journalistic merit is preposterous. Next time, the bloggers should save the money and switch to C-Span.

GAYS FOR BUSH: Finally, an argument that made me turn my head:

It amazes me that you have become so disturbed by the Republican rhetorical attacks that you are throwing away strategy in favor of useless emotional retribution. Every recent extremist Republican maneuver against gays has served only to assist the gay rights agenda. Whether it be the anti-gay anti-sodomy state laws that were overturned or the rejection of a vote on the FMA. The conservatives are aiding the gay cause by creating a legal paper trail of defeats for their side.
Additionally, having radical anti-gay conservatives polarizes Americans in favor of gay rights. Not to sound too much like the Shining Path, but creating a vastly unfair current situation can be a faster method of eventually reaching the goal of fairness than patching up the inequity with half solutions (civil unions.) Separate but equal had a very long life span in race relations; we don’t want the same to happen with gay rights. Supporting democrats who support the ‘separate but equal’ standard is a step back in achieving equality.

I think this reader has a point. Gays have two options: a party that despises their civil rights and a party that takes gay votes for granted. There are risks on both sides. But when you have people like Rick Santorum leading the crusade against gay dignity, gays win. When someone like Bush appears to be coming from the 1950s in his attitudes toward gays, gays win. The danger is that these people actually get things passed – stripping gays of civil rights, of the right to form private contracts, of the right to serve their country, penalizing people with HIV in immigration law, and so on. But their extremism is so palpable that they often fail and their prejudice is so obvious that they turn moderates off. Clinton, on the other hand, made anti-gay discrimination acceptable – by signing DOMA (while he was committing adultery!), by doubling the rate of gay discharges from the military, by making HIV-positive immigrants illegal, and so on. I have similar worries about Kerry. But I’m not sure a gay person can risk the damage the Republicans would do to gay lives, security and civil rights. Bush clearly wants to deny gay couples any legal protection for their relationships, and will never stray from the dictates of James Dobson and Rick Santorum on the issue. It would take an awful amount of cynicism to reward that.

At least according to Tom Brokaw. But Bush won’t get married, natch.

I don’t know enough about Barack Obama to judge whether he will be a good senator on a range of issues, but from his speech tonight, it’s hard to think he anything but a stellar future. What he emphasized was another theme of this conservative convention: that the country must and can unite. It’s a brilliant maneuver to pose as (and exemplify, in some cases) a force to overcome the divisions within the country, divisions that make all of us frayed and often testy in a time of grave danger. America is deeply thirsty for a black leader who is first and foremost an American leader; and for any leader who can reach out to both sides of the culture war. Obama struck many conservative notes: of self-reliance, of opportunity, of hard work, of an immigrant’s dream, of the same standards for all of us. Which Republican couldn’t say exactly the following words:

This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations.

Burke in a sentence. Obama also found, I think, the best anti-war formulation for the Democrats. here it is:

When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never- ever- go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued – and they must be defeated.
John Kerry knows this.

So the anti-Bush argument is framed in terms of defending our troops. I also think that the term “shade the truth” is far more defensible rhetoric against the White House than the cant about lying and misleading the country. I still don’t believe there was any deliberate shading of any truth. But it’s a deft way of laying into the administration while not sounding like Michael Moore.

BEYOND RACE: Domestically, Obama’s appeal is even stronger. He framed his belief in government with a defense of self-reliance and conservative values. It’s a Clintonite formula, delivered with Blairite sincerity:

The people I meet – in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks – they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead – and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or the Pentagon.
Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn – they know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.
No, people don’t expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all.
They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

Conservative values, Democratic compassion. In the constant churn and dialectic of American politics, this is a new fusion – and the Dems have found a young, racially diverse, eloquent voice. Can you think of any current Republican with that kind of fresh appeal and smart politics? Only Arnold comes close. The Republicans would love to have someone of Obama’s caliber – but they have failed to attract them. That is their tragedy, and it is only deepened in a party that gave rise to Trent Lott and Tom DeLAy. Obama is the Democrats’ hope. Heck, he is the hope for all of us.

On the other hand, the rest of last night was pretty grim. Kennedy was utterly uninspired; Dean was dreadful (what was I ever thinking when I thought he was a good candidate?); and children should never be allowed on political podiums. Ron Reagan was excruciating, but the issue is a real one, and is one of those where the Democrats can show how the religious right completely controls the current White House. Heinz-Kerry’s speech obviously should not have been given. Until now, I’ve never worried about Teresa in any substantive sense. I love her freshness, her attitude, her difference, and the fact that she is a multi-lingual immigrant. But we won’t be electing her and I have no interest in her half-baked political pablum. It is not a feminist achievement to use your marriage as a device to gain political power. Hillary is now a respectable pol because she got elected. H-K’s lecture was condescending, unnecessary and pointless. We needed to know who she is. We only know a bit more than we did. We found out nothing about her husband. She was also dull – in the way that very rich people often are. It’s been so long that they ever really needed to worry what other people think that they lose the capacity for caring. I just hope to God that Teresa will not be running the White House. For the first time, she’s a net negative in my view of whether Kerry could be a good president.