Re: I think this could be easily re-packaged for Mother Jones, don't you?

The Project PM Manifesto

If we acknowledge that things are not what they are because they should be, but rather simply because they are, we might go on to conclude that that which happens to be is not necessarily that which would be best. The totality of human society, being one such thing, may be expected to exist in something less than what we would deem to be a state of perfection. The reader is invited to confirm this for himself.

We are aware, then, that society has suffered from imperfections in the past, the past being the only thing available for our review. We may extrapolate from this that society suffers from imperfections in the present insomuch as that the present is simply the past in gestation, and does not seem to go through any radical transformation in becoming the past, which is to say that we may find great similarity in the now as compared to, say, the now minus ten years. Still, portions of the past may differ in some respects from the present - the past contains the Ottoman Empire, for instance, whereas the present does not. This is reassuring, as it would seem to indicate that the future may differ from the present as well, particularly if we give it cause to do so. Of course, we cannot help but give the future cause to take a certain form, as we influence it merely by existing in the present, which is the future's raw material. The present, incidentally, is the unconscious conspiracy of the past; it does not come to us through design. The exception is that small portion of a given present - breakfast, a cigarette, an overthrow of some flawed institution - which is the result of conscious planning by self-aware beings. To the extent that we are able and willing to do so, then, we may conspire against the future in such a way as to bring about such things as these. To have breakfast later, one makes the appropriate preparations.

The reader may object that it is all well and good to point out that things are not perfect and perhaps ought to be changed, but that there is a great difference between pointing out flaws and eradicating them. The difference, our objector continues, is akin to the difference between breakfast, cigarettes, and institutional overthrows; the first two may be successfully pursued by individuals whereas the third tends to require some degree of collaboration, which itself is more difficult to set into motion than are the individual actions necessary to obtain food and tobacco. Certainly these differences are real, and certainly the overthrowing of institutions is a business best pursued in tandem with other individuals. But in a more fundamental sense, an institutional overthrow can be set in motion by way of an individual action just as fixing breakfast or obtaining a cigarette can be. If, for instance, an individual is able to devise a plan by which such an overthrow may be successfully accomplished, and is able to convince others to adopt the plan in such a way as that the plan is perpetuated to the extent necessary to achieve the intended change, then, yes, an individual may cause an institution to be overthrown.

Now the reader may also object that, aside from the semantics of what constitutes individual action, there is still quite a bit of substantive difference between making breakfast or acquiring a cigarette and convincing others to adopt a certain plan. The former actions are quite easy, and accomplished every day by quite a few individuals; the latter, we might agree, is a great rarity - but if we did agree, we would be wrong, because such a thing is not rare at all. Each day, one convinces others to collaborate on some or another thing, such as the preparation of breakfast. It is simply a matter of convincing others to join one in doing such a thing.

Again, the reader objects, this time noting that it is nothing more than a transparent rhetorical trick to compare the persuasion of others to join one in making breakfast to the persuasion of others to join one in attempting to pull off something so ambitious as the overthrow of an institution. There is, one would note, a major difference in terms of feasibility between the making of breakfast and the making of trouble. To overthrow something worth overthrowing, one would have to concoct a plan that would be sufficiently promising to incite the interest of others. One would have to locate those individuals who are in a position to ensure that the plan is disseminated to the extent necessary for implementation, and then one would have to contact them and convince them not only to agree with the plan, but to act on it. To the extent that the plan requires resources, expertise, and infrastructure, all of these things must be secured, and this may require one to convince others to provide these things. To summarize, one must put in place the conditions by which the plan is not only possible, but deemed viable by those whose cooperation is necessary to implement it. One must set things in motion.

I will admit that such tasks as described above are easier stated than done. But that is irrelevant, as I have already done all of these things.

As noted above, the present is the unconscious conspiracy of the past. The past has conspired to establish the traditional United States media as it exists today - an institution that has failed both our own citizenry and that of those other nations upon which our own government has lately had some measurable effect. This is the institution that we must overthrow if we wish to improve the world in a manner that is realistic in terms of its viability. And if we do not wish to do so, we are the inferiors of a great many people who have come before us and who have acted in environments less conducive to easy alteration than is ours. Never has there existed such opportunity for revolution in human affairs.

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:

   ***

   Back at Liberty Sunday, former Mormon bishop Mitt Romney was introduced by his Mormon wife Ann. Romney, of course, was here to speak about why traditional marriage is a sacred and inviolable practice consisting of a single man and a single womana concept that his church had vigorously opposed until several showdowns with Congress in the late 19th century ended with a conveniently-timed new revelation to the effect that God had changed his mind about polygamy.

     After Ann Romney had announced to wild applause that she herself was a direct descendant of the splendid William Bradford, Mitt Romney took the podium to say his piece. The nation's values, he said, were under attack. Today there are some people who are trying to establish one religion: the religion of secularism. Unfortunately, the religion of secularism's operations have yet to be declared tax exempt, which is why I can't write off all of my Gore Vidal novels, tweed jackets, and imported coffee.

     A bit into his speech, Romney went off-message when he noted that our fight for children, then, should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults, thus admitting that the point of all of this was to limit rights, rather than to protect them. But if our Mormon friend went on to elaborate regarding his advocacy of federalized social engineering, I wasn't able to catch it, and neither were the thousands, literally millions of others watching via the telecast; the transmission broke up in mid-sentence, and didn't resume until after Romney had finished speaking. Apparently, Yahweh does not approve of his True Church being rendered unclean by the presence of Mormons, who believe, among other things, that Jesus and Satan are actually brothers. A message from the Family Research Council came up asking me to click stop on my media player. Then restart it, and to repeat thisnot a word about prayer. Later on, after the transmission had been fixed, Tony Perkins took the stage and said something about someone having pulled a power cord. Never fret, though: We know where the real power comes from! Then there was applause, presumably for the engineer who plugged the cord back in.

   James Dobson appeared via a pre-recorded tape. He was in Tennessee on that particular evening. Tennessee has an open senate seat, he explained. Fair enough. Dobson cited some scripture, as well he might. 'For this cause,' he quoted, referring to the cause of matrimony, 'a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.' It certainly sounds as if Yahweh has stated His opposition to letting the in-laws move in. Judeo-Christianity is not without its charms.

More than 1,000 scientific studies conducted in secular universities and research centers have demonstrated conclusively that children do best when they're raised by a mother and father who are committed to each other, Dobson asserted. In his 2004 book Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle, Dobson had written something similar: More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. How that figure managed to shrink from ten thousand to one thousand in the space of two years would be an interesting question for a theoretical mathematician or quantum theorist. How do 9,000 things go from existing to not having ever existed at all? Actually, this is indeed a trick question. The trick answer is that those 9,000 things never existed in the first place, and it's doubtful that even 1,000 did, either. The liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America once tried to figure out exactly how Dobson had arrived at his oft-stated more than ten thousand figure, which has since been cited by a couple of politicos on various cable news programs. It seems that Dobson was referencing some books and articles to the effect that children are at a disadvantage when raised by a single mother, although none of the studies cited dealt with the question of whether or not mothers and fathers were necessarily preferable to two mothers, two fathers, or a mother and a grandmother (I myself was mostly raised in this last fashion, and I don't believe I'm the worse for it, but then I'd never thought to ask James Dobson). But even aside from Dobson's slight misrepresentations regarding the nature of the studies that actually do exist, the 10,000 figure is ludicrous anyway; as Media Matters put it, such a number could only be possible if a new study reaching that conclusion had been released every day for the past 27 years. This does not appear to be the case. Nonetheless, Dobson was back to citing the 10,000 figure just a few months later.

   Eventually, Dobson was called out on this particular instance of nonsense by two researchers whose work he referenced in a December 2006 essay that was published in Time and cutely entitled Two Mommies is Too Many. Until this point, neither of the researchers in question had been aware that Dobson was running around citing their work in support of his contention that gay marriage was the pits; they had, in fact, no reason to expect this, as their work supported no such contention. New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan requested that Dobson cease and desist from referencing her work, and Professor Kyle Pruett of the Yale School of Medicine wrote him the following letter which was reprinted on the gay advocacy website Truth Wins Out:

Dr. Dobson,

I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.

You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.

Kyle Pruett, M.D.
Yale School of Medicine

   To its credit, Time later published a response to Dobson's essay, entitled (almost as cutely) Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Just Fine, Thanks.



   Dobson had more concrete matters about which to be livid. It seems that there's a book called King and King floating around the nation's public schools. The plot concerns a prince who decides to marry another man, Dobson tells us, and then, visibly disgusted, adds, It ends with a celebration and a kiss. Dobson thinks this to be very bad form, and, for once, I agree with him. I wouldn't want my children being taught that the institution of hereditary monarchy is some sort of acceptable alternative lifestyle, either. If I caught my kid reading any of that smut by John Winthrop, for instance, I'd beat him with a sack of oranges until my arm got tired. I'm just kidding. I don't have any kids. Yet.

   Dobson's list of grievances went on. A school in Lexington, Massachusetts, had sent students home with a diversity bag which included some materials to the effect that homosexuals exist and are people. In response to the inevitable parental complaint, the district superintendent had said, We couldn't run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed. Dobson read the quote and then delivered the following pithy retort: Well, maybe, sir, you have no business running a school system in the first place!

   Tony Perkins had gone into some more depth regarding the Lexington Diversity Bag Heresy in a recent newsletter. You may remember us reporting last year on David Parker, the Lexington, Massachusetts father who was arrested because of insistence on being notified by school officials anytime homosexual topics were discussed in his son's classroom, Perkins wrote at the time. He made this reasonable request after his six-year-old kindergartner [D1] came home from school with a 'diversity' book bag and a book discussing homosexual relationships. Obviously, Mr. Parker wasn't arrested because of his insistence on anything; he was arrested on a charge of trespassing after refusing to leave the school office, even after having been asked several times by the principal as well as by police. And Mr. Parker had indeed been notified about the bags, along with all of the other parents, twice. A sample had even been displayed at a PTA meeting at the beginning of the year, where it was made clear that children were not required to accept them. But, hey, whatever.

   Dobson had another one. And did you hear two weeks ago that a 13-year-old girl at Prince George's County Middle School was silently reading her Bible at lunch time, when a vice principal told her she was violating school policy and would be suspended if she didn't stop? This actually did happen; the vice principal apparently didn't understand school policy, which clearly states that students may read religious texts. They can also start religious clubs. The problem seemed to be that the vice principal in question mistakenly believed otherwise, perhaps because Evangelicals like James Dobson (and Catholics like William Bennett) are always running around claiming that it's illegal to pray in public schools.

   Then, all of a sudden and apropos of nothing, Dobson warned that our country is in great danger from the radical Islamic fundamentalism, which is telling us now that they plan to destroy the United States and Israel, and I'm convinced they mean it. Really puts that diversity book bag thing into perspective, huh?

   The video ended and it was back to the Liberty Sunday live feed. Perkins noted that the DVD version of the event could be ordered from the FRC website, and that it included bonus material.

   A bit later, Massachusetts Family Institute president Kris Mineau came on. The leadership of this state is beholden to the homosexual lobbyists, he announced. Homosexual money is flooding into this state to deny the citizens the right to vote, to deny our freedom of speech. The homosexual money in question was apparently too limp-wristed and faggy to actually accomplish any of this, though, seeing as how Mineau was exercising his freedom of speech at that very moment and the 2006 mid-terms had yet to be canceled by the Homosexual Agenda Electoral Commission.

   Wellington Boone took the stage. This made me very happy. Boone is a black Charismatic preacher with a penchant for shooting his mouth off about faggots and sissies, as he had done at the recent Values Voter summit, explaining at that event that he is from the ghetto, so sometimes it does come out a little bit. The crackers in attendance had eaten this up with a spoon.

   Like most Charismatic types, Boone comes from the Arbitrary Implementation of Vague Biblical Terminology school of ministerial presentation, whereby a preacher selects an apparently random verse or even just a phrase of the Old Testament and then ascribes to it some sort of special significance, mystical as well as practical. The most popular item of fodder for such a sermon is the sowing of seeds, which invariably entails that the sermon-goer should give the preacher a hundred bucks, because God will totally pay back him or her (usually her) at a rate of return that makes a Reagan-era share of Apple look like a Roosevelt-era Victory Bond. In a way, the sowing of seeds was also the subject of tonight's presentation, insomuch as that everyone had gathered to advocate the supremacy of vaginal intercourse over its lesser, non-child-yielding counterparts.

   Boone was right out of the gate, noting that God does not play concerning righteousness."

   We know what a family is, continued Boone. My wife said to me this morning, she said, 'Well, okay, then. It's sodomites because they're not gays; it's a misnomer. They're sodomites.' That's a pretty clever thing to say, and so one can understand why Boone would be sure to relate this to everyone.

   There were sodomy laws in this country all over from [the] 1600s and it was [at] one time a capital offense, he went on. How could we make it a capital offense? Because most lawyers studied from William Blackstone, who was the foundation ofit was a foundation book that helped those lawyers get a clue as to how they should govern and how they should practice law. Where did he get it from? The Bible. The Bible was the book. It sure was. It was a foundation book.

   Then came what I consider to be the best moment of the evening. So if this is just a small matter, I'll tell you whatlet two women go on an island and a whole bunch ofall women, if you're sodomites, go on an island, stay by yourself, all women, put all the men on another islandthis is my wife talking to me this morninglet them stay. I'll tell you what: 'We'll come back and see you in a hundred years.' There was total silence in the auditorium, as opposed to the approving laughter that Boone had no doubt come to expect from his wife's anecdotes. The problem, he seemed to have thought, was that the subtlety of the joke had gone over the audience's collective head, and so, like any good comedian, he explained the punch line: Do you get it? Because a man and a man and a woman and a woman will not make a child.

   Though a failure at comedy, Boone's real function for the evening was to provide cover for the event's anti-homosexual sentiment by showing everyone that he himself, as a member of a group that has been persecuted, was more than willing to lend his support to the persecution of yet another group, and that this modern-day persecution was, ipso facto, hardly akin to the earlier persecution of blacks to which he himself had obviously been opposed and to which most of the crackers assembled were officially opposed as well. To this end, Boone noted the various ways in which blacks had been persecuted over the years. Now, if you tell me your issue is the same as that issue, he said, addressing any gays who might have been watching the anti-gay event, I'll say you better get a clue. Get out of here. You're not getting over here. There was wild applause. And you're not getting on that. You're not getting any of that. No sir. Perhaps Boone has a point. If so, he refrained from making it. If I was making a speech about gays, and if I was planning to spend the fifth minute of said speech claiming that gays have no license to compare their struggles to that of the blacks, I would probably have refrained from spending the third minute pointing out that gays used to be executed on the basis of Biblical law and that I thought this was a swell thing, as Boone had done, nor would I have menacingly added, If you're in the closet, come out of the closet and let God deal with you and let the nation deal with you and don't hide out, as Boone also did. If you're a homosexual, don't listen to Boone. It sounds like a trap. Stay in the closet with a shotgun.

   Boone was also upset that Condoleeza Rice and Laura Bush had recently presided over the induction ceremony of the new, gay Global AIDS Initiative director Dr. Mark S. Dybul, was particularly peeved that Dybul was sworn in with his hand on a Bible held by his homosexual partner, and was quite unhappy indeed that Rice had referred to Dybul's partner's mother as Dybul's mother-in-law during the ceremony. Boone had a real problem with that. As he explained a bit later, That ain't no family!

   The incident had riled up a good portion of the Evangelical hornet's nest for a variety of reasons; a few days before Liberty Sunday, an FRC spokesman had told the media that [w]e have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, because, I suppose, gay people like to eat AIDS, presumably for brunch.