Will You Listen To Yourself?

Latest Column- The Pilot Newspaper: 


It’s often said that a big part of our problems these days is that we don’t listen to one another. This is undeniably true. However, a big part of our problems also comes from people not listening to themselves.

If people could really hear, objectively, some of the stuff that comes out of them, they might reconsider ever speaking again. Take, for example, former Democratic Congress-man Anthony Weiner, now running a campaign for mayor of New York that’s an absolute train wreck.

Mr. Weiner’s sexy tweets and pictures of his manly part, sent over text and Twitter, have already been documented in nauseating and depressing detail. But then it was revealed that in some of his communiques, he called himself “Carlos Danger.” Really? Anthony. Dude. Step back for a moment and take a good look at yourself, and not through the viewfinder of your camera phone.

It’s true that New Yorkers are a tolerant bunch. After all, the last mayor’s wife had to get a restraining order to keep him from bringing his mistress into the mayor’s mansion. The denizens of the Big Apple can handle a womanizer. But if the latest plunge in your poll numbers is any indication, they draw the line at a cheesy and lame one.

Then there’s Weiner’s communications director, Barbara Morgan. Morgan recently responded to an unflattering online tell-all article written by a former intern with a blistering and profane tirade against said intern that I’d love to reproduce for you here, except that not one word in three could be printed in a family newspaper.

Her excuse? She didn’t know she was on the record. Babs, sweetie, listen to yourself for a minute. You’re the communications director. Isn’t it part of your job to know when you’re on and when you’re off the record?

Another person who should probably have listened to what’s coming out of his mouth is Kentucky Sen. and probable GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul. Speaking at a fundraiser in Tennessee, Paul directed a slam at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (also a likely presidential candidate) and New York Congressman Peter King: “They are precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending. They are ‘gimme, gimme, gimme all my Sandy money now.’”

Oh, Randy, no. Are you listening to the sounds that come out of the front of your head? There’s plenty of spending you could have chosen to mention. But spending on victims of Hurricane Sandy? That’s what you’ve chosen to demonize? Do you hear what you’re saying?

Christie, never one to sit still for an insult, responded quickly, noting that Paul’s state gets back $1.51 from the federal government for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, while New Jersey gets back only 61 cents. He sarcastically praised Paul for his skill in “bringing home the bacon.”

Paul then fired back a zinger of his own, describing the portly Christie as “the king of bacon.” Because when you’re having a serious debate on spending priorities, the best way to get your point across is with a fat joke. Stay classy, Senator Paul.

But for sheer “do you even hear yourself?” effrontery, it’s hard to beat San Diego Mayor Bob Filner.

Filner, as of this writing, has been accused of sexual harassment by no fewer than eight women. Apparently, Hizzoner’s preferred seduction technique was to put his intended paramour in a headlock and/or tell her that she should come to work without underwear on. It worked about as well as you’d expect.

What qualifies Filner for the Chutzpah Hall of Fame, however, is his request that the city pay his legal bills for the defense of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by one of his victims, in part because — get this — the city failed to provide him with sexual harassment training.

“It is my understanding,” Filner’s lawyer wrote, “that such training was scheduled, but the trainer for the city unilaterally canceled. … Therefore, if there is any liability at all, the city will almost certainly be liable for ‘failing to prevent harassment.’” The city declined to chip in, probably because they’re suing him too.

Back many years ago, when I was working in radio, we had what was called a “seven-second delay” — a tape gizmo that allowed us to cut off the transmission if, for example, someone dropped an F-bomb or said something otherwise inappropriate. With all of modern technology, you’d think we could design something similar to strap to politicians so they can think, however fleetingly, about how what they say is going to sound.

What the Heck, Let's Just Go For Full Monarchy

Latest  Column- The Pilot Newspaper:


So the world has another royal baby, and he has a name: George Alexander Louis. His official title will be “His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge.”

What is it with this family and the name George? His granddaddy, the Prince of Wales, is Charles Philip Arthur George, his great-granddaddy was King George VI, and his great-great-granddaddy was King George V.

I mean, I know they’re all about the tradition, but come on, it’s the 21st century. Why couldn’t they have mixed it up a little?

Prince Bubba has a nice ring to it. Or maybe they could defray some of the costs of the monarchy by selling naming rights. Prince Nokia Samsung Hyundai, for example, could bring the family the kind of international branding that’s so important in this global economy.

There was some talk, by the way, that the Prince of Wales intended to rule under the name King George VII. Other sources I’ve read, however, claim he has denied saying that, possibly because it seems a bit rude to pick your monarch name while the current sovereign is still breathing.

Some of England’s pricklier rulers might have even removed one’s head for that sort of thing. Fortunately, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t seem the head-chopping type. I’ve seen the look in her eye, though. I wouldn’t want to risk my neck by crossing her.

In any event, the new royal whelp has, like all things royal, captured the imagination of millions of us commoners on both sides of the pond. In fact, some of the gushing I’ve heard over here about the event made me think that if the Brits wanted to reconquer the U.S., all William and Kate would have to do is carry the little fellow between them in a sedan chair, like that picture of the Ark of the Covenant in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” and people would just fall all over themselves to surrender.

As always, with a great craze comes a great backlash, with various and sundry commentators raising the old cry that the monarchy should be abolished as an archaic and horrendously expensive relic of a bygone age.

Oddly enough, many of those seem to be coming from Americans. Perhaps the most vociferous one came from Hamilton Nolan of the website Gawker, who wrote a blistering polemic titled “Imprison the Royal Family and Abolish the Monarchy.” Nolan writes, “In a just world, this innocent child would be going up for adoption, since its family would have been imprisoned for crimes against humanity.” It gets worse from there. The rather overheated Mr. Nolan, as noted above, is an American, which raises the question of what standing he has to be so indignant.

In the U.K., on the other hand, a British friend (the talented thriller writer and journalist David Thomas, aka Tom Cain) tells me that only about 18 percent of Britons polled actually want to see the monarchy abolished and that even the most fervent Scottish nationalists promise to keep the queen as head of state.

On the pro-royalty side, Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post recently wrote a column in which he suggested, with tongue only partially in cheek, that the U.S. might be well served by becoming a monarchy — a constitutional one, of course.

“Constitutional monarchies,” he points out, “have an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71 and an average life expectancy of 75.6. All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76 and an average life expectancy of 68.3. Point: constitutional monarchies.” In addition, he asserts, the royal family, instead of being a drain on the British economy, actually generates “tiny stimulus boomlets” around events such as the royal birth.

So, hey, why not give it a try? It’s got to work better than the current state of gridlock. The only problem is actually picking a monarch. But does it really have to be? As various royals have shown, a member of the royal family doesn’t have to be particularly smart, talented, or even good-looking (at least if you’re a male). So the choice should be obvious.

Call me Prince Dusty, and feel free to grovel.

This is Outreach?

Latest Newspaper Column: The Pilot Newspaper


It’s pretty much accepted wisdom at this point that, in order to succeed on a national level, the Republican Party is going to have to broaden its appeal.

As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham put it, “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

So what are conservative Republicans doing to expand their appeal on the national level?

Well, you have Phyllis Schlafly of the right-wing Eagle Forum going on conservative radio and explaining that it’s useless to try to reach out to Latinos because they don’t “have any Republican inclinations at all,” and “they’re running an illegitimacy rate that’s just about the same as the blacks are.”

Further, she said, Latinos “come from a country where they have no experience with limited government. And the types of rights we have in the Bill of Rights, they don’t understand that at all. You can’t even talk to them about what the Republican principle is.”

Perhaps someone can explain to Mrs. Schlafly, first off, that Latinos don’t come from “a country.” There is no country called Latinostan. Also, they can explain to her that insulting, en masse, the fastest-growing voting group in the U.S. is the path to political extinction.

Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Off His Meds) defended his opposition to immigration reform and asserted that Latinos won’t punish the GOP at the ballot box with this gem: “I think you will see people start waking up and go, ‘Wow, I’m Hispanic and these Republicans really like me. … Wow, this Republican really does want me to do well. That’s the party I ought to be in!”



Yeah, Louie, let me know how that condescending and paternalistic attitude works out for you. Of course, this is the guy who once berated the attorney general for casting “aspersions on his asparagus,” much to the confusion of all in the hearing room, so maybe he’s jockeying for Michele Bachmann’s soon-to-be-vacant position as Head Loony of the Republican Caucus.



Don’t worry, ladies — the Republican Party hasn’t forgotten you! Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz., of course) recently demonstrated, once again, the GOP’s ignorance of female anatomy by confidently asserting that exceptions from abortion restrictions in case of rape are unnecessary because such pregnancies are “rare.” He apparently forgot that ignorant BS like that cost the GOP a Senate seat less than a year ago.

During the recent debacle in Texas, where the legislature came back especially to pass a restrictive abortion law, Republican legislator Jodie Lautenberg struck a blow for gender equality in the area of ignorance by claiming that emergency rooms have “rape kits” that “clean women out” (for the record, the rape kits are for collecting criminal evidence). Scottie Nell Hughes, director of the Tea Party News Network, went on TV saying that rape victims who end resulting pregnancies should serve the same jail time as their rapists. And the beat goes on.

Of course, there are some who say that there’s no need for outreach, that “angry white guys” are enough to carry them to the White House and control of the Senate. I invite those people to compare and contrast a pair of events that happened right here this past week in North Carolina. They are the latest “Moral Monday” protest on the Halifax Mall behind the General Assembly building and the “Thankful Tuesday” counter-demonstration the next evening.According to The News & Observer, the police estimated 2,000 attendees at the Moral Monday protest. Organizers pegged the number at closer to 5,000. The Tuesday protest, on the other hand, drew a mere 200 people, holding signs that said, “Stop Abortion Now,” and “Thank you [Gov. Pat] McCrory.”

So, even using the lowest estimate, 10 times as many people turned out to protest the General Assembly’s current path as turned out to support it. And the pictures from the event really tell the tale: The Moral Monday folks are a strikingly diverse group, of all ages and races. The TT’s … not so much. They are, shall we say, ethnically homogenous, and not one of them looks younger than 60.

Of course, the generally low turnout for TT may be because right now even a lot of sane Republicans are getting disgusted with the General Assembly’s full-steam-ahead efforts to enact a radical right-wing social agenda at the expense of little details like a state budget.

Maybe they’d get better turnout if they called for a “Stop Futzing Around and Pass a Budget Already Tuesday.” Granted, it doesn’t roll as trippingly off the tongue, but I think it accurately sums up the frustration I’m hearing from Republican friends of the non-insane variety.  I know the GOP isn’t listening to me, but maybe it could listen to them.

The Pictures Tell The Tale Here In NC

"A crowd of about 200 hollered and cheered. They waved signs that bore messages Halifax Mall isn’t used to seeing on Mondays: “Stop abortion now,” and “Thank you McCrory.”

The turnout for the last Moral Monday?

Police estimate 2,000, organizers say 5,000, even the most conservative estimates put the Moral Monday crowd at 10 times the size of the tiny, ethnically homogenous,  aging supporters of our ridiculous General Assembly.

You are seeing the future, right here.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/16/3034412/conservatives-praise-nc-gop-legislative.html#storylink=cpy

My Killer Thrillers Interview

Your Humble Blogger is interviewed by the lovely and talented J.F. Penn:

The Brilliant Bigot

Latest Column-The Pilot Newspaper: Dusty Rhoades


Those of you who aren’t science fiction geeks have probably never heard of Orson Scott Card. But those of us who love stories of possible futures and pasts that never were, he’s one of the legends. He’s won the Hugo, the Nebula, the Locus and a slew of other awards.

One of his best-known novels is the classic “Ender’s Game,” the story of a young boy being turned into a killer in a brutal orbital boot camp set up to train child soldiers to fight an alien enemy. It’s a great book, a real-page turner. It’s complex and dark and shocking and thought-provoking, with an ending that makes you go “Whoa. I did not see that coming.” Card is a truly gifted writer. A master of the craft.

He’s also an irrational anti-gay bigot.

Card has written extensively against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, even going so far as to suggest that legalization of same-sex marriage would be sufficient justification for armed overthrow of the government.

“Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy,” he wrote. “I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”

He’s claimed that “the dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.”

One wonders how Mr. Card knows the “dark secret of homosexual society,” but we’ll leave that aside for the moment. Lately, however, there was some evidence that Mr. Card has come around — or has he?

He wrote a piece that appeared in Entertainment Weekly, in which he stated that the recent Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act has rendered the gay-marriage issue “moot.” He said, “The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.”

So far, so good, and probably legally correct. But he went on to say: “Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

Well, I have good news for you, Mr. Card. I’m reasonably sure that there won’t be a French Revolution style Reign of Terror against you and people who think like you. No guillotines, no tribunals.

I’m even willing to bet that there won’t be any kind of movement to deny you and your beloved the things you’d deny to same-sex couples — everyday things such as being able to cover your spouse on your health plan, pay hospital visits as a matter of right, be considered next of kin for health care decisions, inherit without a will, etc.

You get to keep doing all that stuff. You don’t have to get divorced and gay married now, and your children can still “expect to marry in their turn.” And you can still write whatever you want. Feel better?

As it turns out, though, that’s really not what Mr. Card means when he talks about “tolerance.”

See, “Ender’s Game” is being released as a movie, and there are some pro-marriage-equality groups who have put forth the proposition that since this Card fellow has spent a great deal of time, creative energy, and money supporting causes that directly oppose interests vital to their well-being, maybe they shouldn’t help support him with their own hard-earned shekels by paying for tickets to see the movie.

I can see their point, although I personally have always been of the opinion that the artist’s work should be judged on its own. Let’s face it — there have been some artists who have done great works despite being generally awful people.

The brilliant poet Ezra Pound was a Fascist and a Nazi collaborator. Jackson Pollock was a wife-beating drunk. And so on. But I don’t boycott them. Of course, those artists have the advantage of being dead, so I don’t have to worry about the money I spend enjoying their art being used against the interests of people I care about.

So will I go see “Ender’s Game: The Movie”? I don’t know. I still haven’t made up my mind. But I certainly won’t blame those who make the choice not to help the career of someone who’s worked, written, and spent money to deny them the things they hold dear.

“Tolerance” doesn’t require people to help pay for the shine on the boot that’s been kicking them.