Delivering the State

Let us suppose – just hypothetically – that one is a political fundraiser who has pledged, in the next election, to deliver a certain state for a particular candidate. How would one go about this?

First and foremost, it is vital that there be absolutely no evidence of irregularity. Were such evidence found, it could prove fatal to one’s chosen candidate.

Therefore, a voting method that leaves no paper trail would be ideal. Some sort of electronic device, one which creates invisible ballots that are tallied by secret software within the machine.

Once the desired machine is deployed, delivering votes for one’s candidate is simplicity itself. Decide what margin of victory you want for your candidate. Pick a number comfortably larger than the anticipated number of absentee and provisional ballots, so there will be no uncertainty and no reason for a pesky recount. (We’re assuming that polls show the election very close to begin with, preferably a statistical dead heat.)

Just picking numbers out a hat, let’s say we want a margin of victory of . . . oh . . . let's say 150 thousand votes out of 5.4 million cast. Program the voting machines in the following manner. Change every 17th vote cast for your candidate’s opponent, into a vote for your candidate. Make this adjustment AFTER the voter has confirmed his/her vote.

That’s it. Change every 17th vote, and you will deliver the state for your candidate. If someone demands a recount, it’s simple - just press the button, and the same exact numbers will come out. It’s a computer, you see, so the answers MUST be right. There’s no paper trail, no record of votes outside the machine, so how can anyone prove your count wrong?

Only one discrepancy will remain to point the way to what you’ve done: any exit polls will be mysteriously off-target. This is inevitable, because exit polls are based on asking real live voters which way they THINK they voted. The way the machine TOLD them they voted . . . not the way the machine actually reported their vote.

Exit polls are usually among the most accurate of public-opinion polls. So if you see a state, maybe a battleground state which used electronic voting machines, in which the exit polls disagree with the official tallies…then perhaps someone programmed the machines to alter the results.

Or perhaps not. After all, there’s no paper trail, no physical evidence, no way for anyone to prove vote tampering.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical situation . . . .

-M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Creating Jobs in PA

The Ivory Madonna has just returned from a multi-state driving trip in the U.S. Northeast, and she noticed something interesting.

There's an awful lot of road construction going on in Pennsylvania.

The Ivory Madonna drove on many Interstates: 83, 81, 84, 90, 495, 95, and probably a few she's forgotten. In Pennsylvania in particular, she was on 83, 81, and 84 twice, about a week apart.

No road construction in New Hampshire. None in Massachusetts. A smattering in Connecticut. A tiny bit in New York. None in Maryland. But Pennsylvania...goodness!

Come down the long hill on I-84 from New York into Pennsylvania. On the approach to Port Jervis, the road is terrible...but there's no construction. But cross the Delaware, and as soon as you're in Pennsylvania, bam! Road construction.

Road construction on the way into Scranton. Road construction on I-81 south of Wilkes-Barre. LOTS of road construction north of Harrisburg. Road construction on I-83 around York. Scattered road construction across the whole eastern half of the state.

Why Pennsylvania? Why Interstate Highway road construction?

Hmmm. A swing state with a depressed economy.

A very close swing state that has lost a lot of jobs.

Road construction paid for by the Federal government.

An election coming up.

Hmmmm....

Lots of Federal money flowing into a close swing state, creating temporary jobs. Very little Federal money flowing into neighboring non-swing states.

Now, Liberal fiscal theory says that if people are out of work, the government should create jobs for them in order to stimulate the economy. Conservative fiscal theory says that if people are out of work, the government should cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Unless, apparently, it's a close swing state...in which case the government should create jobs for people.

Temporary jobs, which will cease to exist after the election.

Contracting jobs, which don't pay benefits.

Hey, one must stick to one's principles. Unless, of course, one is in danger of losing the election. Then, of course, anything goes.

-M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Lines on a Map

T'other day the Ivory Madonna heard a particularly inane comment on the radio. The commentator said, "At the moment, the United States is the only glue holding Iraq together. If we pull our troops out, Iraq as a nation will cease to exist. It will be replaced by three or more smaller nations."

The United States is the only glue holding Iraq together.

And what, pray tell, is so imperative about Iraq staying "together"? Why is it so bloody important that the artificial construct we call "Iraq" remain a single sovereign nation? ("Nation" itself is another artificial construct, but let's not get into that right now.) What's wrong with three or more smaller nations?

Lines on a map, drawn by the British in 1920. Lines that are so meaningless that they will quickly dissolve unless enforced at gunpoint. Lines that bind together peoples who desperately want to be separate.

That's what soldiers are dying for. That's why violence rules Iraq, why civilians are killed and maimed by the thousands. That's why the U.S. must stay in Iraq. Because of some artificial lines drawn 84 years ago.

Perhaps some lines are worth dying to preserve.

These aren't.

-M

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Quote for the Day

Quote for the day:

"People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. ...All you have to do is tell them the're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I don't think anything more need be said.

Oh, right. The author of the quote above?

Herman Goering.

-M

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Liberal Media

Conservatives and Christianists love to complain about "liberal bias" in the media. A lot of media organizations are quick to take exception. On yesterday's Diane Rehm Show on NPR, for example, both Diane Rehm and guest Terry Gross (host of NPR's Fresh Air) went to great lengths about the pains that they and other NPR people take to make sure that their programming is fair, balanced, and inclusive of all sides.

...Which, you see, is just the problem. Fairness, balance, and inclusion are themselves liberal notions. As soon as you decide to be fair, to give all sides equal time, to include all points of view -- right there, you are displaying a liberal bias.

To the Conservatives and Christianists, the opposite of "liberal bias" is not "fair and balanced"...the opposite of "liberal bias" is "conservative bias." That's what they want in all news programming, not just Fox News and its ilk, but everywhere. And any media outlet that doesn't provide a conservative bias, is automatically guilty of "liberal bias." For them, there is no middle ground of "fairness." There is only bias, conservative or liberal.

Yet when they hurl the charge "liberal bias," everyone takes them seriously. News media, even NPR, take conscious steps to address the issue. Why?

There is only one reason that this tactic succeeds for the Conservatives. That's because for the American people, by and large, fairness is a good thing, a desireable state of affairs. For most Americans, the opposite of "liberal bias" (or "conservative bias") is "fairness." An accusation of "liberal bias" is taken seriously because, to most Americans, it is an accusation of "unfairness."

And if there's one thing the American people can't stomach, one virtue that nearly everyone agrees upon, it's fairness. Everyone should get to play, and everyone should have a fair chance in the game. That's the American way.

I think the Democrats are losing a big opportunity here. They should be casting issues in terms of fairness/unfairness, rather than liberal/conservative.

Most people don't care if their taxes are high...as long as they perceive that the tax burden is spread fairly. People get upset with taxes when they see rich individuals and corporations getting away with paying less than their fair share.

Most people are uncomfortable with using the word "marriage" for unions between same-sex partners...but they are equally uncomfortable with same-sex couples not getting the same legal benefits as opposite-sex couples. People want things to be fair.

Most people will support any stupid thing a President does (i.e. invading a foreign country)...as long as he doesn't lie about the reasons. People want the President to play fair.

I could go on and on. Medical insurance, Social Security, the budget deficit, immigration, voting machines, the Electoral College...no matter what the issue, most people in the United States support whatever seems most fair. They know that life isn't fair, and that we'll never achieve a state of perfect fairness...but they believe that fairness is a virtue, something to strive for.

The Democrats should be pushing that message constantly, pointing out how the Conservatives and Christianists want things to be unfair, to preserve bias, to shut certain people out of the game.

And that's my unbiased, balanced, and fair opinion.

-M

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Assorted Bits of Advice

Memo to Floridians: The Ivory Madonna is sorry about your losses due to Hurricane Charley. She wishes to express her sympathy with the victims of Hurricane Georges in 1998, Hurricanes Erin and Opal in 1995, Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Agnes in 1972, Betsy in 1965, Cleo in 1964, Donna in 1960, and hundreds of other lesser hurricanes and tropical storms that have ravaged Florida over the past three centuries.

She also wishes to remind Floridians that there is absolutely no law against moving to a safer state.

---

Memo to Republicans Who Are Disenchanted With Bush: The Ivory Madonna feels your pain. The economy is in the toilet. The United States has lost what few friends it had in the world. Both the Federal Budget Deficit and the Trade Deficit are at the highest levels ever. The rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer, and the middle class are sinking lower and lower. Civil liberties continue to vanish under Yellow Alerts, Orange Alerts, Red Alerts, Chartruese Alerts. Almost a thousand U.S. troops have died in Iraq, all because of Weapons of Mass Destruction that weren't there and an alleged connection between Saddam and al-Queada that doesn't exist.

And yet you just can't bring yourself to vote for Kerry.

The Ivory Madonna understands. Her first suggestion is that you consider casting a protest vote for Nader. Many other Republicans are doing the same.

Yeah, the Ivory Madonna hears you. Nader? Yuck.

There is hope. The Ivory Madonna reminds you that there is absolutely no law requiring you to vote. You don't want to vote for Bush, you can't vote for Kerry or Nader. So stay home this time. It's okay. Really.

---

Memo to Virginians: You don't have to stay there. Honestly. There's no law that says you can't move.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Homeschooling On the Rise

So homeschooling is on the rise, with over a million students being homeschooled last year (link). Thirty percent of parents said they chose homeschooling for "the flexibility to teach religious or moral lessons."

Translated: "Public schools refuse to teach my kid the ridiculous superstitions, absurd myths, and social prejudices that my religion espouses. I am aware that none of these beliefs could possibly survive comparison with other, more rational streams of thought -- therefore, I do not want my kid exposed to any other opinions. Besides, I don't want my precious, purebred child to associate with people of different racial/social/economic backgrounds, in case he/she might bring one of them home. Therefore, I will keep my kid out of public school, and indoctrinate him/her myself."

One hears unspoken words echoing in the background. Words like "evolution," "blacks," "Jews," "ho-mo-sexuals."

One has to wonder...when that kid grows up, and gets a job working with people of diverse backgrounds -- what's going to happen? How will the poor kid know what to do?

I suppose these parents feel that they are rich enough that their kids won't have to work.

Pity it's the kids -- not the parents -- who will suffer.

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

The Darfur Airlift

So the UN has begun airdrops of food and other relief supplies into Darfur (link). About bloody time.

Now wouldn't that be a magnificent use of the United States's military power and air superiority? Wouldn't it be great if, instead of smart bombs, we could be dropping smart aid packages?

Oh, but wait, the US military is tied up in the disastrous aftermath of an unprovoked war.

Ah, well, who cares? Not only does Darfur not have any oil, but they're just a bunch of dahkies anyways....

Is it any wonder that everyone in the world hates us?

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Who's Gagging Speech?

Opponents of gay rights are quick to raise the specter of free speech being gagged. Part of the Gay Agenda, they say, is to classify opposition to gay rights as "hate speech," and to punish those who speak their minds.

Well, here's a case of "A church choir director [who] was fired after church officials took issue with a newspaper opinion piece he wrote urging support of gay marriage." Dennis Adam Ray, choir director at the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Sebring, FL, was fired after he expressed his pro-gay opinions in a July 22 guest column in a local newspaper.

Punishing those who speak their minds is not part of the Gay Agenda...but apparently it is part of the Christianist Agenda.

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Full Moon

One of the Ivory Madonna's co-workers just dealt with a particularly obtuse customer. Returning to her station, the co-worker muttered, "Must be a full moon."

She refers, of course, to the old bit of folklore that claims people are especially crazy around the time of the full moon.

The Ivory Madonna heartily agrees with this theory. Based on years of observation, she firmly believes it, and has worked it out to an exact statement, which she will now share with you:

During the period two weeks before and after each full moon, people behave like stark, raving lunatics.

-M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Berger and Files

So Sandy Berger removed sensitive documents from the National Archives, and he's being accused of trying to hide embarrassing secrets related to 9/11 (link).

What is it with Republicans and trying to hide embarrassing secrets?

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Cutting the Grass

What is it with this society's abnormal preoccupation with cutting the grass?

The Ivory Madonna currently presides over about half an acre of ground. Before her arrival, this half-acre was a vast wasteland of grass, with a nice line of cedar trees along one border. Just the sort of place that would make a nice, native-growth meadow.

Harumph. Tell that to the Lawn Nazis.

Yes, the Ivory Madonna's local government has an entire department of the bureaucracy devoted to the sole task of forcing people to cut their grass. Every month or so, when the neighbors call the Lawn Nazis upon her, the Ivory Madonna receives a threatening letter from this department, telling her that if her plants are not trimmed to below six inches, they will send a crew out to do so, and then charge her for the service.

Then down come the daisies, the coneflowers, the wild roses, the ornamental grasses, the waves of amber grain. Away flee the bunnies, the birds, the butterflies and dragonflies, and all the other happy animals whose habitat has just been slashed to the ground.

Meanwhile, in a nation that is suffering from a shortage of petroleum products, countless gallons are wasted in weekly mowings. Greenhouses gases pour into the atmosphere from millions of lawnmowers. A positive haze of ozone and other pollutants hangs over the world. Not to mention the thousands of person-hours lost in this constant grass-cutting.

Why? To satisfy conformity. To provide lawnmower dealers with a guaranteed income. And (it's no secret) to personally annoy the Ivory Madonna and her entourage.

This nonsense must cease.

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Activist Judges

Things aren't looking good for the radical right and fundamentalist Christianists on the gay marriage front. It's been two months since gay couples started getting legally married in Massachusetts, and somehow God hasn't sent down fire and brimstone (maybe He has more important things on His plate). Civilization has not collapsed. Yesterday's humiliating defeat of the Federal marriage Amendment shows how out-of-touch these people are.

But hate and fear spring eternal, and now they're going after "activist judges" (link). The new mantra is "activist judges should not be allowed to write laws, like they did in Massachusetts. The legislature should write the laws."

Hey, folks, quit beating up on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (MSJC), okay?

The MSJC did everything in their power to let the legislature write the laws. The legislature just didn't co-operate.

Here's what the MSJC said, paraphrased by the Ivory Madonna: "Hey, Legislature! You know, we've got a bad situation here. Our marriage laws are in conflict with our Constitution. We'd like to point this out to you, so you can do something about it.

"So here's the deal: we won't do anything immediately. We'll give you six months to write laws to eliminate this conflict. Maybe you could take a look at existing marriage laws, re-examine the whole concept of marriage and what it means? The field is wide open, you can make any laws you wish, as long as they're consistent with the Constitution. Please take advantage of this period, and write some good laws. That's your job, not ours. That's what you were elected for.

"Really, guys, we're serious here: Please give us some laws that are consistent with the Constitution. Because if you don't, we'll do what the Constitution says, and give everybody equal treatment under the law. But we're confident it won't come to that, becuase you Legislature guys are just as serious about your responsibilities as we are, and we know you'll do your job."

The Legislature pissed away several months doing nothing but bitching and complaining. After a while, they said, "Hey, MSJC, we know you said the Constitution requires 'equal treatment,' but we figured 'unequal treatment' would be fine instead. Is that okay?"

At which point the MSJC said, "Uh, guys? 'Equal treatment' means 'equal treatment.' That's what it says, in black and white. Don't you think you should get busy writing some laws? You've only got a month or so. Please, please, don't put us in the position of having to act because you didn't do your job."

At the last possible minute, having piddled away six whole months, the Legislature decided to begin the process of changing the State Constitution.

The six month deadline came, and the Legislature had not changed State marriage laws by so much as a single comma. So the MSJC did what they said they would, and ordered that existing laws should be administered so that everyone gets equal treatment, the way the Constitution says.

Suddenly, everyone started screaming at the MSJC, for doing exactly what it said it would do if the Legislature didn't do its job.

The Massachusetts Legislature had the opportunity to take a hard look at the whole concept of marriage, to have the difficult discussions and come up with a way to balance religious beliefs, social justice, and equality. They could have taken a leaf from the French, and set up an institution of "civil union" for all citizens, leaving "marriage" to the churches alone. They could have scrapped "marriage" entirely, and created brand new institutions that would fit the 21st century and not conflict with tradition. They could have done anything. Instead, in the words of John Adams in 1776, they "piddled, twiddled, and resolved."

"Activist judges," phooey. What we need are activist lawmakers who will do their job and write laws to correct injustices, rather than pissing away the time they have in futile bitching and moaning.

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Securing Polling Sites and Stealing Elections

Well, the Ivory Madonna is back from vacation and feeling feisty. And along comes this AP story (link) headlined "Ridge Warns of Election Terror Plot."

The key part is this:

"...authorities have begun working through the process of how to secure the thousands of polling sites that will be used around the country this fall, said another senior intelligence official..."

Oh, have they, now?

The Ivory Madonna supposes that this is advance justification for stationing armed and uniformed police (or military) at all polling places nationwide. Guards with the authority to do on-the-spot searches, without warrants.

Which will certainly deter many from voting. The poor, blacks, gays, underclass people in general...all of whom have various reasons to distrust and/or fear the cops. Anyone who doesn't want to take the chance of being detained, questioned, searched, or worse.

Hmmmm. Whom will this disenfranchise more, Republicans or Democrats?

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Trust Democrats

Here's a story (link) titled Kerry hints he'd review "don't ask, don't tell" if elected, which says:

If he is elected president, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry hinted he might review the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Kerry commented on the thorny issue in an article published in Monday's edition of the Army Times and its sister publications Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times. "It seems to me we are losing a lot of talent for our nation in interpreters, in intelligence, in a lot of different things," Kerry said in the interview. "There must be a way for those people to serve somehow."

Don't you believe it.

Clinton came into office with great promises of allowing gays to serve in the military. Just like every other politician, he broke those promises at the first hint of difficulty. And Kerry will be the same way. Gays have been burned by this pattern often enough to know. Besides, Kerry (who publicly opposes marriage rights for gays) is not a friend of the gay community. In fact, like most Democrats, he is anxious for gays to support him, without having to give back anything of substance in return.

Now, don't get me wrong. Gays, along with everyone else of any pretension to intelligence, should vote for Kerry in November. Not because of any Kerry promises, not because of anything Kerry says or does, but for one simple reason: Kerry is not Bush.

The Ivory Madonna finds herself singularly unimpressed by John Kerry. But Bush and his cronies horrify her.

Once Bush and his administration are out of office, and the Republicans no longer control Congress...then there will be time to attempt to re-make the Democrats, or find some viable alternative. For now, as Arianna Huffington says, the house is on fire, and it's no time to worry about redecorating.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Answering the Non-Fanatic

In an article titled "The non-fanatic case against gay marriage" (link), Geov Parrish says: "...as gay unions, in whatever form, draw closer to being a legal and cultural reality, a more nuanced, moderate opposition is gathering force. Secular opponents have raised questions that advocates must answer."

The Ivory Madonna applauds Mr. Parrish for attempting to discuss marriage for gays on a secular and non-fanatic basis. He says, "For better or worse, proponents of gay marriage need to understand and be able to respond to those concerns," and he deserves an answer.

So the Ivory Madonna, in the spirit of secular non-fanaticism, will now go through Mr. Parrish's article and address the points he raises.

First, Mr. Parrish wisely discounts the "slippery slope" argument that marriage for gays will inevitably lead to polygamy, bestiality, and marriages between people and household appliances. Like most "slippery slope" and "domino theory" arguments, this one is absurd.

However, says Mr. Parrish:

...the underlying point is worth examining. What does it mean if marriage is taken out of the church, taken out of its traditional limits, and derives its legal basis instead solely from contract law? It has implications for alimony and custody of children in divorces; for the finances and real property of common-law marriage; for the tax code; and much more. All must fundamentally change if the logic of gay marriage is followed. Imagine, for example, common property statutes -- or child custody -- if a half dozen pairs of people have various interlocking relationships.

Ahem. Marriage has been "out of the church" since the first Justice of the Peace married the first couple in a civil ceremony...at least a few centuries. Marriage has been a matter of "contract law" longer than the United States has been a country -- for as long as civil marriage laws have existed, in fact. At a guess, at least since Ancient Rome.

As for the specter of the legal chaos that would result from "a half dozen people [with] various interlocking relationships"...Mr. Parrish, have you looked at the current state of marriage and parenthood in the United States? Are you aware of how many children have multiple sets of parents, step-parents, custodial parents, birth parents, and ex-parents? Heterosexual marriage and divorce has already created the situation you seem to dread. It's hard to see how throwing a few homosexual marriages and divorces into the mix could "fundamentally change" the system of serial monogamy that now exists.

So...point number one is that marriage for gays will produce a situation almost exactly the same as what now exists. Sorry, Mr. Parrish, that's just not a very scary possibility.

Second, there's the "Promoting homosexuality" argument:

The most obvious objection, and hardly limited to avowed homophobes. The concern is simply that with the rearrangement of so much law to accommodate it, and stamp of “normality” attached, more and more people will try gay sex, or (gasp!) “become” gay. Reasons why this is seen as a bad thing, without considering any biblical sanctions, range from the traditional (yuck!) to issues of procreating for the species and public health with unsafe sex and multiple partners.

Let's see...allowing gay people to marry would produce more unprotected sex and multiple partners than exist now? Er...exactly how is that going to happen? Does marriage make heterosexual people engage in more unsafe sex and multiple partners?

As if heterosexuals don't engage in unsafe sex with multiple partners. Mr. Parrish, have you been to any high schools or colleges recently?

And are you aware that our world is seriously overpopulated? That today, with all the "permissiveness" and toleration for gays, there are more people alive than at any time in history? Believe me, "procreating for the species" is not a problem.

And, of course, there's the traditional "yuck" factor. Hate to tell you, Mr. Parrish, but a lot of people think that what heterosexuals do in bed is "yucky." If the "yuck" factor were a legitimate reason for legislation, then brussels sprouts would be illegal.

The Ivory Madonna can't quite take seriously the claim that once people try gay sex, they will instantly convert to homosexuality. Huh? The Ivory Madonna can tell you, it's not like nicotine or heroin. One sample does not get you "hooked for life." Science tells us, in unequivocal terms, that homosexuality in humans is a trait present from birth or very early infancy. One doesn't suddenly "convert" to homosexuality the way one suddenly converts to born-again Christianism.

And besides -- if we're postulating a world in which there is little social stigma to being gay...in which gays are seen as "normal" or "just like straights" -- then where's the harm if people do "decide to turn gay"?

Third, Mr. Parrish raises what he calls Undermining "family values":

Conservatives worry about the social impacts of removing the norms that have traditionally accompanied marriage, particularly gender and monogamy. If marriage is seen as simply a legal contract, such vows might be easier to dishonor, or ultimately break, than when it is seen as a once-in-a-lifetime union under God. Society has already been moving in this direction for decades, with rising divorce rates and the dissolution of the traditional two-parent family as the prevalent model in America. Gay marriage, opponents fret, is more dirt on marriage’s coffin.

Again, Mr. Parrish seems to be under the delusion that we live in the 1950s. No, because the real 1950s weren't such great shakes...rather, let's say that Mr. Parrish seems to be under the delusion that we all live in the world of "Leave it to Beaver" and "The Donna Reed Show."

Someone is going to have to explain slowly, in very small words, exactly how the bonds of marriage could possibly be easier to "dishonor, or ultimately break" than they are now. Let's try a thought experiment. If gays really are 10% of the population (a generous estimate), and if every gay couple in the nation got married tomorrow, and if every one of those couples got divorced right away...then the divorce rate would go up by a maximum of 10%.

Mr. Parrish, this particular horse escaped from this particular barn a couple decades ago.

If conservatives were truly worried about "the dissolution of the traditional two-parent family as the prevalent model in America," then they would be working to prohibit divorce and make adultery illegal. Mr. Parrish, the sad fact is that keeping gay couples from marrying has no effect on heterosexual divorce rates. (As a matter of fact, divorce rates have risen during all the time that gay marriage has been illegal. Obviously, not allowing gay marriage makes more heterosexuals divorce. The sensible thing would be to try legalizing gay marriage and see what happens.)

And what's with this "dirt on the coffin" analogy? Is Mr. Parrish suggesting that it makes any sense to say, "Out of respect for the deceased, we cannot allow you to throw dirt on the coffin?" Mr. Parrish, have you ever been to a graveside funeral service? Throwing a handful of dirt on the coffin is the traditional thing to do. I thought conservatives loved "traditional" ways?

Mr. Parrish's last argument goes like this:

Finally, opposition to gay marriage also comes from more radical gays who worry about the opposite influence, and reject what they consider a fundamentally straight institution. While a more popular criticism a decade ago, it’s still out there: why should people who’ve spent a lifetime rebelling against society’s sexual norms suddenly aspire to embracing its most fundamental institution?

To which the Ivory Madonna can only whip her head around with a bemused expression and cry out, "What?!"

Mr. Parrish, no one is suggesting that marriage should be compulsory for gays (or straights). Any radical gays who want to reject marriage as a straight insitution, are perfectly free to do so.

One might just as well propose that, since some people don't care for peach ice cream, then peach ice cream should be illegal.

...Oh. In the final analysis, that's what all Mr. Parrish's secular, non-fanatic arguments boil down to: Gays should not be allowed to marry, because some people don't like the idea. Call it waht you want, it still boils down to the "yuck" factor.

Well, I'll tell you what, Mr. Parrish. The Ivory Madonna doesn't much care for the idea of other people having sex at all. It's one big "yuck" factor for her. Therefore, let her propose a Constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage for those who have sex...straight sex, gay sex, any kind of sex. Yuck!

...unless it involves the Ivory Madonna herself. Of course.

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

I Say Patata, You Say Potatl

The Ivory Madonna has always been an advocate of multilingualism. Educated adults, she has always believed, know more than one language. (It has often been said that one doesn't truly know one's own language, until one learns another.) One of the Ivory Madonna's biggest regrets is that she went to school during the unfortunate period when Latin was not taught, even as an elective. And now, here is a BBC article (link) offering evidence that being bilngual has positive benefits: "...those who were fluent in two languages rather than just one were sharper mentally." Researchers suggest that bilingualism, by keeping the brain active, can actually protect against senile dementia.

The Ivory Madonna has never supported the "English-only" or "Official English" movements that seek to define English as the sole language of the United States. If nothing else, it is supremely ill-mannered to deliberately make things difficult for visitors and immigrants who do not speak English. Besides, the whole thing will become moot within a decade or so...on-the-fly computer translation will be commonplace, so people will be free to use whatever languages they wish and still understand & be understood by their neighbors.

HOWever...all that being said, the Ivory Madonna wishes to take to task those parts of the Hispanic community that strongly agitate for increased use of Spanish in government and society.

Now, the Ivory Madonna, being part of the dominant culture, suffers from her own share of cultural guilt for offenses in the past, as well as those that continue in the present. She agrees with these parts of the Hispanic community, that minority populations should not be forced to give up their own culture and use the dominant culture, whether it's language or anything else. She agrees that there should be no discrimination against those who do not speak the dominant culture's language. She agrees that minority cultures should be respected and honored, not eliminated.

...Which undoubtedly explains why there are so many speakers of Mayan languages in Latin America. Why Mayan is taught in schools, and there is no discrimination against Mayan speakers.

The Ivory Madonna is as susceptible as the next person to White Guilt. However, she finds it odd for Hispanics to be claiming the moral high ground on this particular issue. All those native cultures in Latin America did not just fade away into nothing by themselves. The Spanish-speaking descendants of Spanish settlers in Latin America, in the Ivory Madonna's opinon, bear just as much guilt as the English-speaking descendants of Northern European settlers in North America.

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Ashcroft Named "Worst Attorney General in History"

If you don't read Paul Krugman's editorials in The New York Times, you're really missing a treat. (His book The Great Unraveling, which is a compilation of past columns, is wonderful.) In today's column (link), he states:

No question: John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in history.

To which the Ivory Madonna can only say: Right On!

Back in 2001, when Bush nominated Ashcroft for the post of Attorney General, the Ivory Madonna wrote to her Congressfolk predicting that if Ashcroft became Attorney General, the nation would regret the day. Instead of voting against him, most Democrats rolled over and did what Massa George wanted them to. And now the nation rues the day.

Sigh. As a wise person once said, "There are very few problems in this world that could not be solved if people would do as I say."

Note to Congress: Next time, listen.

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

US Intelligence

Everyone, from the 9/11 Commission on down, seems surprised and astonished at the way the various US intelligence agencies dropped the ball on terrorism and Al Queada.

The Ivory Madonna wonders why.

US intelligence missed the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941.

Sputnik was a completely surprise to US intelligence in 1957.

In 1961, due to CIA failures, the Bay of Pigs invasion was a total failure and an embarrassment to the US.

Forty years afterwards, unanswered questions still surround the JFK assassination. Intelligence agencies missed the other spectacular assassinations of the period, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.

In 1975, faulty intelligence sent the would-be rescuers of the U.S.S. Mayaguez to the wrong island. 41 US combat deaths resulted.

The 1978-79 revolution in Iran, which overthrew the Shah and began the Hostage Crisis, came as a surprise as far as US intelligence was concerned.

No intelligence agency gave any warnings of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

Throughout the Cold War, US intelligence consistently overestimated the size and capabilities of the Soviet Union, to the point of showing the population of Moscow twice as large as it really was. Endless documentation that came to light after the USSR dissolved, shows that US intelligence about the USSR and the Eastern Bloc was mistaken on a spectacular scale.

In 1993, the FBI screwed up massively and famously in Waco, Texas. The same year, Ramzi Yousef and his people bombed the World Trade Center...with no advance warning from US intelligence.

No intelligence agency was able to predict the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

US intelligence missed Pakistan's surprise nuclear-bomb detonations in 1998.

The Ivory Madonna could go on and on, but she's not going to waste her time or yours. Suffice it to say that US intelligence failures regarding 9/11, or Afghanistan, or Iraq come as no surprise to her.

What does astonish her, is how the government (any government) keeps trusting what these jokers say.

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.

Making the World Safer...er...More Dangerous (oops)

This Associated Press story (link) says:

The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims — success in countering terror. Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said.

Oopsie!

The original (incorrect) report was released on April 29. At that time, various Bush Administration officials waxed enthusiastic about how it proved that their policies were working to win the "war on terror." Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, said, "Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."

The Ivory Madonna wonders if the same officals will now acknowledge that, according to the exact same logic, these new (correct) figures show that they are losing the fight, and making the world a more dangerous place?

Of course, the Ivory Madonna also wonders if little piggies will sprout wings and take to the air.

She doesn't hold out much hope for either....

M.

---

The Ivory Madonna's story is told in Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.