From Munguin’s New Republic, the truth must be spoken!
Tag Archives: politics
Elon Musk Can Kiss My Hairy Ass and Then Go Home
Elon Musk, the South African-born multi-billionaire who has founded several companies, including Tesla and Space X, has jumped into the 2024 presidential race with a curious stunt in support of Donald Trump. He’s offering USD 1 million to anyone who signs his pledge to support free speech and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Pennsylvania State Attorney General Michelle Henry filed suit against Musk; stating the giveaway is technically a lottery not sanctioned by state officials. But Pennsylvania State Judge Angelo Foglietta stopped the litigation by refusing to block the Musk’s antics. Instead, he deferred the matter to a federal court and noted that Henry’s suit probably won’t be resolved before Election Day, next Tuesday.
I could care less whether this foreign-born tax cheat wants to engage in such capers. One million dollars to any average person is attractive, including myself. But my vote is more important than that. So is everyone else’s.
It seems every major election in the U.S. since 2000 has gotten more and more weird. I remain cynical, as my displeasure with government at all levels in this country grows. Both major political parties have become increasingly dominated by extremists. Regardless of the office they’re seeking, candidates have always played initially to their base; those unmovable die-hards who will vote for one side no matter what. Then, once the candidate has secured the nomination, they expand their outreach to persuade as many others as possible.
Over the past decade, however, Donald Trump has preached to one group and only one group: his faithful (and fanatical) acolytes. He mocks them, in a way, behind their collective backs; the same way false prophets ridicule their blind minions.
From a political standpoint, I consider myself left of center, but I’ve voted consistently Democrat since 1992. Then came 2016 and I went rogue by voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. I didn’t care for Trump and I never liked Hillary Clinton. Now I absolutely despise Trump and don’t care for Vice-President Kamala Harris. Recently various European chapters of the Green Party have begged Stein to withdraw from the presidential race and support Harris. At this point, though, it may be too late.
I’m not – and never have been – persuaded by editorial or celebrity endorsements of a particular candidate. Musk can keep his money – and settle in comfortably at one of Trump’s estates. I’ll vote my conscious, for whatever that’s worth in these chaotic days. Besides, official Election Day, November 5, will be my 61st birthday. I won’t spend it thinking about politicians.
Image: Gary McCoy
Filed under Essays
Glassed
Around the turn of the century, I saw news that a women’s college here in the U.S. had contemplated admitting men within a year or two. The shock and outrage from the female student body was as palpable as it was vociferous. Ironically the institution had a male chancellor at the time. He tried explaining to the crowd that the college was trying to maintain its viability, but his voice was suffocated by the intense hysteria. You would have thought the incoming male students would be selected from a sex offender registry. I’m sure those young women had long since bought into the feminist myth that all men are naturally prone to violence, especially sexual assault. Almost immediately, however, the college rescinded its decision, much to the delight of the students. That same male chancellor made the announcement by unfurling a banner that bore the term “For Women Again”. The crowd erupted into cheers of relief; some even popping open bottles of champagne.
At the bank where I worked at the time, the subject arose during a lunch conversation. I was the only man in the small group, and my female colleagues collectively agreed that they understood the reticence of that college’s students to admit men. But, of course, I had to opine by highlighting the obvious anger those young women expressed at the initial announcement. “I wonder what those little girls will do when they enter the adult world and have real problems. And there’ll be men all over the place, and there’s not a goddamn thing they can do about it.”
I suppose my constituents weren’t surprised by the statement, but to some extent, they had to concur. There was a time when the genders were explicitly separated, and everyone seemed fine with it. Men did this, and women did that. And things functioned relatively well.
But I pointed out that, if women want true equality, they have to accept that men are part of that equation. In many ways, for centuries, men have excluded women from the decision-making process; claiming there was a “place” for them. Women have fought back and demanded a place at that proverbial decision-making table.
Oddly one of the women sitting with me in that lunch room didn’t believe women should be in positions of power, such as the U.S. presidency. “We have too many emotional and hormonal problems!” she said, much to the shock and chagrin of the other women. She wasn’t the first woman from whom I’d heard that. But this was 2000, and I was certain such beliefs had been relegated to ancient times – like dial phones.
A few years before that particular conversation a similar debate arose among me and some female colleagues at the bank; another one about gender parity. I noted that, if women wanted true equality with men, they needed to start registering for Selective Service – like the men have to do. In the U.S., Selective Service is the most blatant form of sexism. The current system was reinstated in 1980 by then-President Jimmy Carter. Every male in the U.S. born since January 1, 1960 has to register for it within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In the face of a never-ending Cold War and the sudden Iranian hostage crisis, it was a call-back to an older time in America. There’s no penalty for late registration, but there are plenty of punishments for failure to register – including jail time and a six-figure fine; no admittance to college; and no financial aid. The issue was a big one when I was in high school and it became a concern during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
In the aforementioned workplace conversation, one of my female colleagues – the mother of a single college-aged son – responded, “When men get pregnant,” before storming off. Another woman concurred with a laugh. But I pointed out that men have to register for Selective Service; otherwise, face some serious legal repercussions. Women, on the other hand, don’t have to have children if they don’t want. There is no law that compels women to get pregnant. My female cohorts couldn’t offer a logical reply.
All of that came back to me last week, when Vice-President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination as presidential candidate. She’s only the second woman and the first non-White woman to be so honored. This year’s presidential campaign has literally turned out to be the oddest in decades; certainly the most unusual in my lifetime. And at the age of 60, I don’t have too many first time experiences left.
I started coming of age in the 1970s, just as the contemporary feminist movement was making more concerted inroads into a patriarchal American society. I recall how just being male seemed to become anathemic. Many women demanded full and complete equality with men in every aspect of civilization. Yet, by the 1990s, I noticed some women (and men) expected a double standard.
Women can’t reasonably demand to be treated as equals to men in business and politics, yet still expect to be placed in the same category as infants and children when it comes to their health and welfare. In other words, don’t insist on being given the chance to be the CEO of a major corporation, a governor, a Supreme Court justice, or president of the United States and still want to be the first ones in the lifeboat when the ship hits the ice berg.
If you want equality, I’ll give you equality. But, remember the old saying: be careful what you wish for; you might just get it. When it comes to progressive attitudes, I sometimes think of the 1967 film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”. Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn portray a liberal San Francisco couple whose all-inclusive ideology is tested when their daughter (Katherine Houghton) introduces her fiancé (Sidney Poitier) to them. While the movie is rife with stereotypes, the general message is essential: how sincerely should people value and hold onto their beliefs. The presidency of the United States has often been deemed the ultimate “glass ceiling” for women. As we march further into the 21st century, members of every previously-marginalized group need to consider how much shattered glass they want on the floor of progress.
Filed under Essays
I Miss You, My Friend
As my 60th birthday approached last weekend, I thought of an old friend who had a birthday at the end of October. We haven’t actually spoken in years and last communicated via Facebook. But I don’t have any contact with him now.
Because of Donald Trump.
Max* was an interesting character. Born into a large familiar from Eastern Europe, he lived in a number of different places because of his father’s career. All of that afforded him not just an extraordinary education but an incredible life experience. He became well-versed in the arts and humanities; a polyglot who could communicate with most anyone.
I admired him on many levels; even envied him. Just listening to him made me feel smarter. We discussed a number of issues; seeming to solve all the world’s most vexing problems.
Then Donald Trump entered the fray of politics, and I watched almost helplessly as Max descended into the madness of right-wing extremism. I tried to remain reasonable; thinking it was something of a phase. Max couldn’t be this delusional, I told myself; he’s too much of an intellect to be persuaded by this charlatan of a man.
But my thoughts – nearly prayer-like after a while – had no effect. Max remained a devout Trumpist. I realized he’d been seduced when he posted a portrait of Francisco Franco, the long-serving Spanish dictator, to his Facebook page. I’ve often referred to Franco as Western Europe’s last totalitarian ruler; an autocrat who suppressed political dissent and an open media. Trump reminded me of him – someone who despised his critics and launched vocal tirades against them to state his point. His contemporaries included Brazil’s Jair Bolsarano and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. When Max posted that photo of Franco, I was appalled. I guess I shouldn’t have been so upset, but it genuinely shocked me. I quickly pointed out Franco’s dismal record on basic democratic principles and human rights, but a written response on a social media site is almost pointless. Max had already fallen for the Trump rhetoric and seemed to concur with some of it. When Trump referred to some African nations as “shithole countries”, for example, Max noted he’d lived in Africa briefly during his youth and could identify with Trump’s description of the region.
“Really, bro?” I replied at one point.
But again – pointless.
How do you persuade someone who’s consumed that proverbial Kool-Aid? Long answer: education and persuasion. Short answer: you don’t. As smart as Max is, I honestly didn’t know what overture would be appropriate. So…I just let it all go.
I genuinely hate that sensation – ending a friendship because of political opinions. I’d never had that experience before. Friends have died or simply faded into their lives, but I’ve never had one dissipate because of politics.
This past Saturday, November 4, another close friend, Preston*, treated me to lunch for my birthday. As with Max, he and I often engaged in cerebral conversations, which I absolutely love. I’ve known Preston much longer than I knew Max. Our exchange migrated to politics and the 2020 election. Preston is a Trump voter, but he doesn’t appear to be a devout loyalist. Still, he feels fraud prevailed in the last presidential election. I feel it prevailed in the 2016 election and highlighted that Trump didn’t win the popular vote.
“I have to respectfully disagree,” he said.
I looked at him and mentioned by former friend Max and what happened with us. “Dude!” I said. “I’ve already lost one friend because of political differences! I’ll be damned if lose another! Especially you!”
I told Preston I love and respect him too much to let politics drive a wedge between us. So, we dropped the matter and moved on to other things.
I miss you, my friend Max. I genuinely miss you and your views on the world and hearing you talk about your life experiences. But you made the choice to become blinded by the rantings of a pathological madman; you caused this division between us. I’m certain you’re not exactly upset or mortified – and quite frankly neither am I.
I just hate to see a good friend fade away in the morass of politics.
*Name changed
Filed under Essays
Worst Quote of the Week – April 9, 2022
“Public defenders often have a natural inclination in the direction of the criminal. Their heart is with criminal defendants.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, on why he opposed the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court
Previously, Jackson had been a public defender. Despite right-wing opposition, Jackson was confirmed to the High Court by the U.S. Senate.
Filed under News
From the “Who Gives a Damn” Files – January 8, 2022
“I have come to the realization that my relationship with YouTube is dysfunctional.”
Sen. Rand Paul, announcing he will stop posting videos on the popular platform
Paul dubbed it part of his “exodus from Big Tech” and has accused YouTube of partisan censorship.
Filed under News
Worst Quote of the Week – April 24, 2020
“What I said when I was with you that night is there are more important things than living. And that’s saving this country for my children and my grandchildren and saving this country for all of us. I don’t want to die, nobody wants to die. But man, we’ve got to take some risks and get back in the game and get this country back up and running.”
– Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, on jump-starting the economy in Texas and other states to stave off a recession.
Patrick is essentially trying to walk back a comment he’d made last month that he’d rather perish from the new coronavirus than see instability in the state’s economic system.
Too late.
Filed under News
Still Can’t Get into the Dance!
“I checked my watch. Yep, it was 2020. We were supposed to have flying cars by now. Instead, gay Republicans can’t even get a booth at their own convention.”
– Marco Roberts, secretary of the Texas Log Cabin Republicans, lamenting how the Texas Republican Party has – once again – refused to grant the Texas LCR (an openly GLBT group) a booth at this year’s state convention.
Damnit! They paid for their tickets, but they still can’t get in through those steel doors! They wear the red, white and blue; display their guns; mock affirmative action; and say they hate immigrants. But, the ballroom guards just won’t let them get beyond the entrance threshold. What’s a queer Republican have to do to get noticed in the state of Texas?
Apparently, nothing. Once again, the Texas GOP has locked out their smidgen of homosexual brethren; refusing to acknowledge they even exist, much less grant them any speaking privileges. As the Texas Republican Party continues along its rightward path, that’s not surprising. Recently they rejected – yet again – the Log Cabin Republicans’ request for a booth at the state convention, denouncing the group as “perverted”. LCR is a political organization that advocates equality for the queer community; essentially a political home for conservative gays and lesbians. They admire Ronald Reagan and oppose the usual “liberal agenda”: big government, taxes, affirmative action, abortion, Mexicans, Muslims and Bill Clinton. One aspect of the liberal agenda they can’t bring themselves to oppose is…well, themselves! Homos, queers, fags, dikes…you know – perverted folks. It’s the oddest of all symbiotic relationships. From the national level on down, the Republican Party has not hidden its animosity towards the queer community. They despise homosexuals more than agnostics and uppity (meaning educated) Latinos and Negroes.
Conservative queers often mirror the general conservative population: mostly White and male. I’ve known a few conservative queers – emphasis on “few”. Literally just one woman and a handful of men. Queer conservatives are a little like snow leopards – rare and practically endangered. The major difference of course is that snow leopards are stunningly beautiful and more deserving of their niche in the world.
Two queer conservatives I knew had been good friends of mine nearly 20 years ago. One was Jewish and a native Texan; the other was Native American from Arkansas and an Army veteran with cheek bones high enough to set Jell-O shots. Together they owned a chain of men’s clothing stores throughout Texas and were, therefore, staunchly pro-business. They eagerly supported Republican Party ideology of low business taxes and few regulations. They didn’t care very much about the environment and – more astonishingly – they didn’t worry how fellow conservatives viewed them. The Jewish guy literally told me that one day! “I don’t really care how they look at me,” he stated nonchalantly. He and his partner were more concerned about the overall welfare of the nation; they stood alongside the party’s general message without hesitation or regret. Their business acumen was so intense that the Jewish guy once dismissed my unemployment status around 2002 in that “you only represent about 6% of the population.” In an interview with the “Dallas Voice” several years later, the Jewish guy openly declared his opposition to diversity in the workplace; admitting he believed businesses should have the right NOT to hire people of a certain race, ethnicity or religion simply because they didn’t like the people within that group. I noticed he didn’t include sexuality in that group of undesirables. I remember thinking, ‘How could someone hate themselves THAT much?’
Indeed, how could anyone with at least half a brain and some semblance of a conscious willingly accept the bigoted philosophy of others among them? Of course, some Republicans didn’t mind if queers loiter among them; as long as they kept quiet and vocalize their support for the party’s agenda. After all, there were some Native Americans in the ranks of the U.S. Army and Jews among the Nazi guard. My two aforementioned friends noted change often comes from within. But, I realized after listening to them, so does support.
Among the many items on the Texas GOP agenda, one in particular has gained national notoriety: support of “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians. Reparative or conversion therapy is a concerted psychological attempt to change someone’s sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual. (There’s no such thing as reverse therapy, unless you count visiting a gay bar.) Doctors, clerics and various others have tried to “cure” queer people of their “affliction” for centuries, usually through religious means. But, in its present form, conversion therapy has existed since the 1960s. Early attempts often used electroshock therapy; the same kind previously used on the mentally ill. And, of course, queer folks have always been considered mentally ill by many in both the general population and the medical community. Some in both camps still hold that assessment. But, contemporary reparative therapy is generally more psychological in its approach, with a good dose of theological rigor thrown into the cocktail.
Response to the inclusion of conversion therapy has been met with the usual vitriol from gay rights groups and medical professionals. No concrete proof exists that such methods actually succeed, even though there are plenty of people willing to testify otherwise. If anything, the process can be deadly. People who undergo such treatments usually don’t notice a change in their same-gender attractions and – feeling like utter failures – sometimes hurt themselves, often fatally. I don’t think it bothers the likes of Texas Governor Greg Abbott or Senator Ted Cruz that a depressed queer kills themselves. To them, that’s one less degenerate off the streets.
That the Texas GOP should include this mess in their agenda shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with the party, or with the antagonism queer folks feel when confronted by them. But, what of gay Republicans? How exactly do they regard this mess? Well, for starters, Log Cain Republicans has officially denounced the reparative therapy. In that regard, they’re in line with the general queer community.
LCR’s battle with their Republican brethren in Texas is not new. They’ve tried unsuccessfully to become part of the mainstream Republican dialogue. In 1996, when Bob Dole ran for president on the Republican ticket, the national GOP created ruckus within its own ranks when it initially refused to accept a $1,000 donation from LCR. Then, it changed course and asked LCR to resubmit the money, which LCR did. But, responding to internal pressure, the GOP returned the donation. After the very public squabble, LCR officially declared itself neutral in that year’s presidential campaign. They damn well couldn’t support incumbent Bill Clinton. That would – as one LCR official declared – “undermine our credibility.” But, it still couldn’t bring itself to support Dole. It was left holding that $1,000 check and its support, like a teenage boy left holding a pair of tickets and box of Trojans outside the prom venue. And, it’s been that way ever since.
Change may come from within a particular group, but at what point do you finally get it that some folks within that group just won’t change? Steven Hotze, the leader of an anti-LGBTQ religious organization and Republican kingmaker, sent emails to board members decrying the “immoral and perverted sexual proclivities” of gay people.
State Sen. Rob Hall (R) accused the group’s members of promoting “unnatural sex.” Speaking of Log Cabin Republicans, he added, “They don’t have the basic belief in the God of the Bible that we are founded on. I could not find anywhere on their website an expression of their faith in God like you will find on a Republican website.”
Not to be defeated or deterred, a representative from LCR tried to remake the vitriolic rhetoric by saying the number of people who spoke in support of accepting the group’s money to buy booth space was encouraging. Relatively speaking, it was a huge win.
Yes, a win for the party at a state and even a national level. But when will the queers in the trenches finally get it that they’re really not wanted? When will they understand that, no matter how much they try, they still won’t be allowed into the dance hall?
Filed under Essays
Best Quote of the Week – January 10, 2020
“Climate change shouldn’t be fodder for commentators who represent the interests of the fossil fuel industry by muddying the science. As a human and a scientist, this focus on controversy is frustrating. A thermometer is not liberal or conservative.”
– Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University
Photo by Randal Ford.
Filed under News
Chief Writing Wolf 