Out of the Closet

For the last 5-10 years overt antipathy and bigotry toward members of the LGTBQ+ community had seemed to be steadily declining. To be sure, no one believed that it (like racism) has ceased to exist, but it became unacceptable in polite society to advertise such attitudes, and those who held such views found themselves, ironically, in the closet, so to speak.

Just as President Trump’s wink and nod to the neo-Nazis and white nationalists encouraged racists to crawl from their ratholes, so has Governor DeSantis’s plan to base his campaign on gay-bashing (to wit, the recent ad* from his campaign that essentially says, “No one hates the LGBTQ+ community more than me, especially that enabler Trump.”) encouraged his Ameristani acolytes, like the Taliban after the U.S withdrawal from Afghanistan, to come forth from their dark caves and reveal themselves. Not only are they openly and proudly proclaiming their bigotry, they’re advertising and reveling in it. I take no solace that the recent sign-burning in our purple dot of a community was done under the cover of darkness.

I’m a big fan of unintentional irony (and karma), so I’m not sure what to think about some right wing groups making Chick-fil-A a boycott target for having dared to create an EDI (Equity, Diversity & Inclusion) Office and then even hiring someone to lead it. DeSatan is trying to make such EDI programs illegal in what he hopes will become Floridistan. So much for “local control” and “free” enterprise.

Many people, me included, are bemoaning divisiveness in the United States. I’d like to be optimistic, hopeful that this is just part of the pendulum cycle. Instead, I’m afraid. Populist politicians encourage the rift because it suits their power-hungry purposes, but if someone you love is a member of the LGTBQ+ community, this is a fearful time. As the t-shirt slogan proclaims, “Be careful who you hate. It may be someone you love.”

*Finding the actual ad link is beyond my skill set, but just click HERE and you'll get the picture.

Wednesday Wonk

I ADMIT to being a bit of a political wonk (unless it requires truly extensive research, because I also admit that I’m not that energetic about providing enlightenment for free). So when the following crossed my “desk” this morning, it triggered a memory.

NOT that I get a lot of MAGA traffic here, but while this is critical of Trump’s tenure as President, it’s policy, not personally, focused. (There’s plenty of the latter out there, and if you’re not already convinced, nothing I or anyone else can say will move you off 5^th Avenue.) Just a tidbit to file away, if you want.

THE move to make LEDs the primary form of lighting in homes and businesses is shaping up to be huge when it comes to energy efficiency. In 2005, a typical commercial building spent 40 percent of its electricity just lighting the place; today it’s 6-8 percent. An incandescent bulb gets 17 lumens of light per watt, while your typical equivalent LED is looking at 70 lumens per watt.… Lighting accounts for 15 percent of global power consumption.... Switching to more efficient lighting not only reduces the costs of light, but also makes it more available worldwide without damaging the atmosphere. (Source: Vox via Numlock)

TRUMP made a lot of noise (because that was his primary focus and outcome across the board) about his battle to undo federal rules (started under George W. Bush in 2007, btw, but accelerated under Obama) on light bulbs. In late December, 2019, the Trump administration announced it would block a rule designed to phase out older incandescent bulbs and require Americans to use energy-efficient light bulbs. 

REFLEXIVE opposition to anything progressive (or somehow connected to the Obama administration) was not only a hallmark of the Trump administration, but also now of the Republican Party, regardless of what positive effects those policies, rules,or attitudes might have. Never mind that LEDs help save both money and the environment. Not that there's a problem with climate change, of course, but $$$....

Doubling Down on Denial

You might think, with good reason, that this is about our politicians (I cannot in good conscience call them political leaders), who seem to think that if you repeat the same denials and falsehoods with increasing frequency and at higher decibel levels, eventually the actual facts will fade away. Sadly, this too often seems to be working, just as it did with Adolf Hitler.
But not so, because this “strategy,” if you will, is not their exclusive province. Strategy might imply more deliberation than is true in most cases, but we’ll just stick with that word. 
We humans have a proclivity to try to shape the world to our desires. Reality be damned, facts be damned, history be damed, science be damned, we’re damn well going to believe what we want to fit the narrative of a world like we want it to be. 
It is why we keep giving those who let us down, or even abuse us, innumerable chances. How many undeserved “last chances” have some of us given addicts, abusers, or offspring? How many times do we base our decisions on hope, not performance. “Wait ’til next year” is not just a sports cliché.
Whether those “last chances” are based on love, fear, or hope doesn’t change the delusion that motivates our decisions and enables their behavior. Sadly, the beneficiaries of our denial probably aren’t any more “telling the truth this time” than they were the last time, even if both they – and we – want that to reflect reality.  

Revisionist History: No Shades of Gray Here

 

I’m generally a “shades of gray” kind of guy. Very little is black or white for me, because, as Jimmy Buffett sings it, life is “simply complicated.” But not always and not everything.

For example, I’d prefer to be far less familiar with child and sexual abuse than I am. I’d prefer to know less, but about five decades in education, as well as some personal friendships, have made that impossible. What I don’t know, however, is anyone, ANYONE, who tries to defend child abuse, in any of its forms. No one says, “Well, it wasn’t that bad.” No one says child abuse was just “kind of” or “mostly” evil, or that it’s not so bad because it’s so common. What constitutes abuse may generate some gray area discussions, but once we’ve reached agreement that someone is/was the victim of abuse, no one, other than a defense lawyer, attempts to discount the life-long damage or minimize the evil. 

Or Nazis. There is no gray area with Nazis, even if they dress it up with a “Neo” prefix, or try to disguise it as “alt right.” Evil, pure evil. Indefensible.

Slavery is similar. The (peculiar) institution of chattel slavery in the United States was evil, pure black, no shades of gray. Its development, growth, spread, all are certainly subject to analysis and explanation – but not justification. It.Was.Evil.  It.Was.Wrong.  It.Was.Ugly.  And there is no excuse for it having hung on in this country as long as it did. Nor is there any excuse for the treasonous war that attempted to not only prolong it but expand its reach. It needs to be taught as such.

That many slaves endured, that some managed to develop the survival and other skills that allowed them to overcome such evil, to even achieve, changes nothing. Florida and other states are attempting to minimize the long and short term damage done to men and women who were seen as less than human, as less than equal persons, based solely on the color of their skin.

Don’t believe me? Think I’m over-reacting? See the annotated standards below from Florida’s state-mandated curriculum, referenced by cartoon art above:

Florida’s State Academic Standards; African American History   

• SS.912.AA.1.1 – Prior to any lesson on American slavery, Florida kids will learn about African slavery, Asian slavery, Muslim slavery, Native American slavery, Arabian slavery and more, just so we’re all clear that everybody ELSE was doin’ it, OKAY?! And it would be fair if we didn’t get our turn.
• SS.68.AA.2.3 — “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” This one has gotten the most blowback. The FL Ed. Dept. then offered “proof” of their “slavery with benefits” theory, providing the names of 16 slaves who benefitted from mad job skills they picked up during their unpaid lifetime internships. Unfortunately, of these 16, 9 were not even slaves, 9 had their line of work misidentified (including 2 accomplished inventors identified as blacksmiths, a guy who founded a shipping company identified as a shoemaker, etc.), and at least one was born after emancipation. And one was the free white sister of George Washington.
• SS.5.AA.1 — Slavery shouldn’t be a big Debbie Downer buzzkill, so the standards look for slavery’s silver linings, such as how escaping slave catchers, dogs and guns taught slaves resilience.
• SS.912.AA.3.6 — “Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against AND BY African Americans but is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921 Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre.”✬

Nothing justifies an evil institution; anything, or anyone, endeavoring to discount, minimize, or whitewash slavery is perpetuating that same evil, and must be opposed with every fiber of our being.

✬ Credit Kirk Anderson for the research and cartoon.

I'll Have a Bud Light

Not really. I no longer drink beer, my lifetime punch-card having been completed by my quarter-century mark, due to maximum (legal, mind you, no fake id for me*) usage in high school, college, and early “adulthood” (which, as Carolyn will attest, is perhaps debatable). And it doesn’t matter if Bud Light actually qualifies as a good beer, or beer at all as some people whose judgment I trust in this area have opined. In any case, that rambling preamble is to make clear that I have no pony in this race, either beer-wise or financially (do not own AB/InBev stock).

However, lately I’ve been in places where beer is clearly the default beverage (at least for those who imbibe,. and I’m tempted to order a Bud Light (which I wouldn’t drink), just to make a point that the I’m not offended by a well-intended but strategically inept marketing decision. (N.b., That “offensive” can was never meant to be offered for sale to the public. Again, according to those I assume have some expertise, the can wasn’t nearly as offensive as what was contained therein.)

What I’ve noticed, however, is that even had I WANTED to drink Bud Light, it is seemingly unavailable, nor (perversely) could I even make some kind of boycott statement, because a skittish bar/restaurant owner/manager has decided not to offer the product rather than risk offending some customer(s). I don’t blame them for that decision; it probably isn’t worth the hassle when there are so many other options that have yet to offend patrons, any more than it’s worth it to me to order it to try to make a point.

If you’ve decided to be offended by the Bud Light trans-supportive campaign and not buy that product at the store, fine by me. I.Don’t.Care. But your boycott has, either inadvertently or, more likely, advertently,  removed MY freedom of choice in a bar/restaurant, making me an unwitting and perhaps unwilling supporter of your manufactured outrage (because, really, what possible difference could this can have made to you personally?). Kind of mutes the whole “freedom” argument, n’est-ce pas? 

And thus my objection, because the culture warriors claim to want freedom, but only if that freedom aligns with THEIR cultural values. Mine are not only less important, but UNIMPORTANT. That dismissive attitude is what I find most objectionable. Not sure what I can boycott to express myself, though.

* Not exactly true, because in Belgium, where I went to high school, you were old enough to drink beer/wine if you could hold the glass; but you DID need to be 18 to see certain movies (e.g., The Prize with Paul Newman & my first celebrity crush, Elke Somer) or go to a club to dance (Beer good, dancing bad; I DO get that the combination can be dangerous under certain circumstances, although if you’ve ever seen me dance, well whatever aphrodisiac qualities might be associated with the activity….). In any case, I did have a crudely forged ID from an altered temporary visa that somehow passed muster with those who recognized the absurdity of the rule in that Catholic country.

 Short version: Being gay and proud ≠ Proud of being gay

Pride — As Pride Month drags to a close (sorry, couldn’t resist) and SCOTUS offers a “Get Out of Jail Free” card to discriminatory businesses (although, tbh, I do not think I would WANT to patronize any business that marginalized me or my friends, and there are too many options of providers who are either friendly or neutral; for me it’s like flying a Confederate (or Trump) flag on your business property, a guarantee that you won’t be getting any of MY money), I want to visit the bigger picture surrounding the word, Pride.
Because I’ve stopped following most Neanderthals and the proudly “unwoke,” I saw only a few anti-Pride, “Straight Pride” memes. I am proud of my success in achieving my goal of no longer tilting at the Windmills of Ignorance without compensation, so I didn’t respond, thus neither “wasting my time nor annoying the pig.”*
Still, there’s a bigger point that needs to be made, and it’s not one that I have seen anywhere else, so I’ll offer my take (it or leave it).
The word “PRIDE” has more nuance than some understand (nuance, like empathy, seems increasingly endangered). Of course there’s the initial thought, having PRIDE in some accomplishment, skill, developed character trait, action, etc. Something deliberate and/or mindful. None of my gay (or Black or….) friends tout their identities a source of pride, however, because identity is intrinsic, not a choice, certainly not an achievement. That’s NOT what the marches, t-shirts, buttons, posts, etc. are about.
For full understanding of a word, we need to know its antonym. The antonym for PRIDE is SHAME; marginalized groups have long been expected to be (or least act) ashamed of their innate identities, that they are somehow unworthy of love or respect. Pride means refusing to accept the shame, refusing to remain out of sight, invisible. “In the closet,” if you will. Pride is about sharing the courage, opening the doors of acceptance, demonstrating, “You are not alone.” 
Pride movements are people demanding to be seen, refusing to be disrespected, cancelled, marginalized, or viewed as somehow “less” than the majority (read “in power”) group. Having once seen a friend, neighbor, or relative proudly display their authentic identity forces people to confront the discomfiting realization that maybe someone they love might belong to that group they hate, dislike, discount, or marginalize. Unless they’ve embraced the blinders of prejudice and bigotry, they can never unsee that person’s authenticity. The courage of PRIDE movement pioneers sends exactly that message, and the spread of that message is why society is slowly, grudgingly proffering acceptance, despite backlash and obstruction from those who fear change, who fear those who are different. That is the beauty and value of Pride movements, validating the right to be proud of who you are, no matter who approves or disapproves.
If you read the comments supporting the anti-LBGTQ+ legislation (both passed and proposed), the sub-text (and occasionally, in a burst of accidental honesty, literal text) is: “You are not welcome here. If you insist on staying (or, heaven {their version only, of course} forbid, advocating for your rights to be seen and treated like everyone else), you’re not going to like the atmosphere.” 
Ameristan, Love It or Leave It. PRIDE offers another, wider, more inclusive, path.

*Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

A Logical Mind in an Illogical World

I didn’t yell at anyone, didn’t make anyone feel bad. I know that someone, somewhere, at some point in time, had a perfectly good reason for making the rule…. 

I went to our pharmacy to pick up the printouts of our prescription expenditures from 2022 for our tax return. (Let me note that I walked the 1+ miles at 20°F to accomplish this task.) At the pharmacy desk I was informed that while they had the reports ready for both of us, I couldn’t get Carolyn’s, it had to be given to her in person.

Never mind that I can pick up her prescriptions without her being there, but not the report of having picked up those prescriptions. I do this without showing ID except to verify our street address. Incidentally, I was not asked to show ID to pick up my report, nor was she upon our return trip. Why not? Maybe because the pharmacy staff knows us. But wait, if they know us…. 

Navigating an illogical word is an ongoing and especially frustrating challenge for those of us with logical minds. At least I closed my exercise ring.