The Democrat Bogeyman

Have you heard people refer to the "Democrat Party?"
They drop the "ic" from the Democratic Party - even though "Democratic Party" is the name of the party.

Maybe you dismissed this as a mistake -- or as D.C. slang from folks in the know.
But it's actually childish namecalling.

Pay attention to who uses the shortened, harsher sounding, ungrammatical "Democrat Party." It's primarily conservative commentators, along with a few of the conservatives working in government.

It's not an accident or accepted slang. It's a cheap shot that, according to NPR's Ombudsman, started in the 50s when a conservative decided he didn't like the opposing party's name because it includes an adjective with positive connotations.

Now, if I have an acquaintance named James who has told me he prefers to go by the name "James," but I insist on calling him Jimbo, there is not a lot James can do. He can explain to others that I am a petty and small-minded person who does things simply to make others uncomfortable, but he can't make me stop.

In fact, taking a stand on such a small thing should be beneath a guy like James.

So, I normally take a cue from this hypothetical James and try to ignore it when I hear conservatives use their disparaging nickname.

But it is an effort to ignore it. I always hear it - of course, that's the point.

Recently, I heard Stevie Miller use "Democrat Party" in an interview about the Administration's plan to shut down the government if Congress doesn't fully fund a wall building project. In the interview, he said, "The Democrat Party has a simple choice. They can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration. You can't do both."

That's when I found a new way of hearing that name, "Democrat Party."

Stevie Miller is not talking about the actual Democratic Party. He's talking about an imaginary group of horrible people who want to destroy the country. The fake party he's talking about is made up of policymakers who would gladly watch this country burn. He gave this imaginary party a name - a name no actual political party has. His monstrous political party is the Democrat Party.

Of course, there is no such party. He (and others) made it all up. It is a horror story used to make sure Trump's base doesn't ask too many questions.

You want proof, look at his quote from that interview:
"The Democrat Party has a simple choice. They can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration. You can't do both."
Wait... What? That doesn't make any sense.
Unless!
That is the logic of a man trapped inside an imaginary fantasyland where the villains of an evil political party are working to destroy America.
The name Democrat Party is an exercise in imagination by people who need make-believe villains to justify the actions they are taking in reality.

We need to talk about the value of liberal studies

from @meakoopa

Honestly, I was about to write about the NRA telling doctors to "stay in their lane" on gun violence because... I mean do I even have to explain?

Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane. Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves. https://t.co/oCR3uiLtS7

— NRA (@NRA) November 7, 2018

But I've written about the erosion of the public's faith in experts here before, and while drafting a new version of that, I stumbled across something that is more fun, and it approaches the same issue from a very different angle: The value of an education that develops students who "read critically, write cogently and think broadly."

from HattertheThird

It started with a meme, of course.

The image and the commentary made the "most viral" page for a lot of reasons, nudity certainly being one of them. But something like this does not get to that spot on Imgur without being a commentary on the times.

And that is phenomenal because just a little digging turns this meme into powerful evidence for an argument on the value of the liberal arts.

• Art history 
• European history
• Political science
• Cultural studies
• Media Studies
• Classical studies
• Philosophy
• Mechanical Engineering

Those are some of the disciplines that contribute to just how much this meme has to say. 

The painting Truth Coming Out of Her Well was painted by Jean-Léon Gérôme. Art historians suggest that the painting not only represents Gérôme's hostility towards Impressionism, they have also noted that it was likely a comment on the Dreyfus affair. 

The Dreyfus affair revolved around trials for spying and espionage. It fueled an intense political division within France that gave rise to both nationalism and antisemitism. 

The man who was falsely accused of spying for the Germans and then sentenced to life in prison was Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a man of Jewish descent. Two years later the French found evidence that it was actually a man named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy who had leaked secrets to the Germans. Esterhazy (a descendant born out of wedlock to the prominent Hungarian noble family) was tried behind closed doors and acquitted before he was secreted off to the United Kingdom where he wrote for anti-semitic newspapers until his death in 1923. 

The coverup was revealed via an open letter titled J'Accuse…! which was published in L'Aurore, a French newspaper. 

The country of France was split by this scandal in profound ways that played out in media outlets with political agendas. 

The painting gets its title from the pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus who said, "Of truth we know nothing, for truth is in a well."

And all of this started because someone (probably Esterhazy) passed secret military plans to the Germans - plans discovered by a counter-intelligence agent working as a cleaner in the German embassy. This woman found, among other things, the torn-up plans for the new French artillery gun, the 120mm howitzer. 

Which is interesting; that fact led some to theorize that Esterhazy was actually a double agent. At the time of the leak, you see, it seems the French had already scrapped the 120mm for the famous French 75 - an artillery weapon widely regarded as the first piece of modern artillery.

And I'm sorry, but if that web of facts from across several disciplines doesn't draw you in and inform your understanding of current events, then you are missing out big time. 

It is interdisciplinary knowledge that allows us to interact with the world in a modern way - a way that helps us understand what art means, what history tells us, what political leaders should do, what racism looks like, what corruption can lead to, what we should expect from the media, what truth means, what kinds of secrets need to be kept, and what the tools we build can do. 

If My Memory Serves

In the hearing today, Senators felt comfortable asserting that Ford might be misremembering events from 1982, but they were reluctant to suggest Kavanaugh might be misremembering those events.

Seems the committee members believe Kavanaugh's either
A) telling the truth or
B) lying.
His memory is somehow infallible.

I find that odd.

Based on both testimonies I heard, the memory I have doubts about belongs to Kavanaugh. And not because of his drinking.

Sounds like attending a rowdy party was a common enough occurrence for Kavanaugh. He sure seems to like beer. So, I can understand how one party might blend into the next.

I spent high school in a predominately white and privileged suburb as well; I'm familiar with those parentless get-togethers in the houses with "the good room we don't use." Those parties all look and feel pretty much the same.

I can also imagine the assault being completely forgettable for a young man.

I know. That sounds bad. 

But I believe Kavanaugh didn't think anything of the event. He saw it as horsing around with a girl he didn't know very well at a fun little party. If you had asked him about it a month later, I could understand if he didn't recall it ever happening. It was, for him, just a moment of rowdy fun. He probably thought Ford was having fun too.

For Ford, however, it was a terrifying assault.

But (as he demonstrated today) Kavanaugh cannot imagine a world in which he has a blind spot.
He cannot understand people opposing his candidacy as anything but a conspiracy.
He could not understand how a young woman would oppose a little horseplay.
To him, it wasn't a big deal.

To Ford, it was.
That event nearly broke a young woman's world.
Tragically, Kavanaugh lives in a world where horseplay that crosses the line is a forgettable occurrence.

For this reason, Ford's memory of that night is the more reliable record.

We are living through a time when people will no longer allow one group's perspective on an event to be "the perspective" on that event.

I'm not surprised Kavanaugh claims it never happened. And I don't think he's lying. I think he committed assault without ever realizing it.

On creating a playlist inspired by The Onion's "My Collection Of Cassingles Is Second To None"

Larry Harroway, Cassingle Collector

On Valentine's Day 2001, The Onion published an opinion piece by Larry Harroway.
The piece is titled "My Collection Of Cassingles Is Second To None."

In his column, Harroway describes a collection of cassingles that inspired me to assemble a Youtube playlist.

This is the most "internet" I have ever been.
I have never been this "internet" before and likely will not be again soon.

It was a profoundly rewarding - if meaningless - experience.

Can't Argue Art

If there is an artist in your life and you support this president, then you are failing that artist.
If there is an artist in your life... a painter, a sculptor, a singer, a dancer...

Today we learned that the President’s FY 2019 budget proposes elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts. We are disappointed because we see [that] funding actively making a difference with individuals in thousands of communities...

--Statement from National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Jane Chu 

Even if this part of Trump's proposed budget gets blocked, the proposal itself is an assertion that our nation should not support the work of artists, that creativity is not something our nation should nurture or value, that money is more important than artistic expression.

That is an actual argument we are having in our public discourse right now.
There are people who believe art does not contribute to the common good.
People will work hard to ensure that our government does not support the work of artists.

I know the following reaction plays into some stereotypes about liberal academics, but I am not going to let those ugly caricatures of liberalism blunt my message here:

People who believe our government should not support the arts are ignorant. 

I know. It is hard, perhaps even impossible to engage in a reasonable debate after insulting people who disagree with me.

But I cannot imagine a reasonable debate with a person who holds that belief.

For one thing, that person is too ignorant to argue with. 

Sure, a person might be able to sound intelligent. They might explain that support for the arts can/should come from places other than our government. They might even pull out numbers and charts demonstrating all of the non-government sources of support for art. And all those arguments, no matter how intelligent they may sound, will only confirm the ignorance of those who espouse them. By limiting the role of our government exclusively to the maintaining of our nation's economic health, those arguments show the mental limitations of the people making the arguments. 

For another thing, I know too many artists to maintain my composure while listening to a person spout that kind of nonsense. I have too many personal connections to artists to keep my cool: my brothers, my niece, my aunts, my friends, my students... The list just keeps growing, and then there are my hopes for my own kids...

Yeah... No way I'm letting that argument even start. It is a stupid argument made by ignorant people. 

An Unresolved Argument on Cultural Appropriation

There are these two things I geek out over, and I want to mash them up.

But I am concerned about cultural appropriation, and I'm hoping some genorous readers can help me sort this out.

The first part of this proposed mashup is not controversial. I play Dungeons & Dragons.
As hobbies go, it's a tad geeky, but less so today. It is certainly less controversial than it once was.

So, yeah. The D&D stuff is not what I'm concerned about.

Here's where I get into uncertain territory. 

I have been developing a playable D&D world based on ideas, characters, and philosophies presented in the songs and album art of Parliament and Funkadelic.

Some Background
World building is a big thing in D&D. If you're unfamiliar, think of any big fantasy or science fiction world: Lord of the Rings, The Handmaid's Tale, Zelda, Star Wars, Dune, Wheel of Time, Marvel, DC, or Earthsea. All of the stories told in those worlds depend on strong world building.

In D&D, people running a game have an opportunity to engage in world building, giving players a unique place to develop the characters they play.

In the world I've been building, the moral alignments (typically Good, Evil, Chaotic, Lawful) are inspired by the music of George Clinton's bands. The pantheon of deities is populated by characters like Dr. Funkenstein and Rumpofsteelskin. The names of various dimensions in the world are based on places and settings the bands sing about. 

It's been a labor of love.

I discovered the band Parliament in 1996. 

This led me to Funkadelic, and then on to The Gap Band, The Commodores, The Ohio Players, Darondo, Sly and the Family Stone, The Bar-Kays, The Meters, Zapp, and so many more.

The groundwork had been laid long before I first heard Flashlight. 

I got into the Talking Heads well before I learned that collaborating with Bernie Worrell had provided the band with so much of their groove. I was a teenager during the Golden Age of hip-hop. James Brown was a fixture in my CD collection in high school, and my folks played a lot of Motown while I was growing up. 

But there was something about Parliament that drew me deeper into the genre of funk. If you've ever listened to the band, no further explanation is needed. If you haven't, I'll just say this much here: The bands' music transports you into an alternate reality where the power of funk is a mystical force that combats boredom and the uptight. There is a wonderful and rich mythology built up in the songs.

The Conflict
I'm a white guy, and Parliament-Funkadelic is a brilliant creative result of African American culture.
Now, I know it is not cultural appropriation for me to enjoy the music of Parliament and Funkadelic.
But what about when I take the ideas from the music and use them for my own creative endeavor?

I'm not going to make any money running this D&D world, and I plan to be completely transparent about the inspiration. It's an homage.

But that doesn't change the fact that I am using ideas that emerged from African American culture to build my own creative setting.

I'm not helped by a certain lack of diversity in Fantasy and role-playing games. For example, that alignment chart I included up above? Pretty white, huh? I went looking for one that included more cultures. Not much luck.

Where does that put my efforts?

I cringe when I hear my inner voice say, "This doesn't feel racist."
That's a thing racist people say.

Nevertheless, playing D&D in a world where Sir Nose D'voidofFunk is in a cosmic battle with Star Child feels right to me.

The Request
Could you help me figure out if my efforts are honoring the work of these artists or if those efforts are trying to claim their work as my own?

I want to be honoring the makers of this music I love, but I'm too close to this project to be an effective judge.

If I am on the wrong side of the line, is there something I can do, or do I drop this?

Any response is welcome.

Why I think he is lying

If I say "the Trump Administration is lying about its support for the Dreamers," like-minded liberal friends nod and agree.

My conservative friends, however, shake their heads and tell me the media and Democrats have duped me again.

I want to build an argument here, as an exercise, showing my conservative friends why I think the Trump Administration is lying and how that belief is rooted in something more substantial than my NPR-saturated media landscape.

Here goes:

Today I read Jeff Sessions describe the Justice Department's efforts to end the DACA program. In response to an injunction from a lower court, he said the Department is "now taking the rare step of requesting direct review [...] by the Supreme Court so that this issue may be resolved quickly and fairly for all the parties involved.”

DACA is an important issue to me.

I work with Dreamers.
I teach Dreamers.
These are my friends we're talking about.

So, I want to believe the President and his supporters when they say the larger goal is to protect the Dreamers.

I want to believe they expect Congress to pass legislation that moves DACA out of the murky realm of executive orders and into federal law.

I want to believe - like Mulder-style "I want to believe."

But if that were the case, why is the Justice Department fighting so hard to end the program?

According to Sessions, the Justice Department is "now taking the rare step" of asking the Supreme Court to step in.
"The rare step," eh?

Why work outside of normal legal procedures to end the protections if the plan is for Congress to protect these people before March?

It's either...
A) The Administration expects DACA to become law, but then that "rare step" seems like a waste of time - a massive waste of effort and time.

Or it's...
B) The Administration does not want to protect the Dreamers. Then the "rare step" makes sense.

It is actions versus words, and the actions tell me the latter is the truth.

That is why I think the Administration is lying about their position on a major policy issue.

I think the Administration knows Dreamers have broad support across the country and across political parties, but the Administration also wants to deport Dreamers to countries they've never considered home. So, they are saying one thing and doing another.

There will likely be an effort to convince us that it was in the hands of Congress and they failed, but based on what I have seen this Administration do, the plan is to end DACA and never introduce protections for the Dreamers.

All that will be done behind the thin curtain of a bald-faced lie.