The road to hell runs through the Arkansas legislature.
It could open up a can of worms, there’s no doubt about that. But our intentions were pure.
That’s Arkansas state Rep. Shirley Borhauer, a 76-year-old grandmother and former schoolteacher, on Arkansas’s latest law: Act 858, which modifies Arkansas Code § 5-68-502, rendering it unlawful to—
display material which is harmful to minors in such a way that minors, as a part of the invited general public, will be exposed to view such material… provided, however, that a person shall be deemed not to have displayed material harmful to minors if the… lower two-thirds (2/3) of the material is not exposed to view and segregated in a manner that physically prohibits access to the material by minors…
It also forbids allowing a minor to view, “with or without consideration, any material which is harmful to minors.”
You’ll be wanting to know how Arkansas law defines what is “harmful to minors.”
...that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, when the material or performance, taken as a whole, has the following characteristics:
(a)The average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors;
(b)The average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(c)The material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors.
Oh, well. That’s nice and precise, isn’t it. Hard to see how anyone could ever quibble over those terms.
Most of these quotes nicked from Newsarama’s excellent summary of what this dreadful law could mean for comics (“Best-case scenario—some kids may not get their hands on a Penthouse. Worst case—every single comic book retailer in the state is brought up on charges by the close of business Thursday”). There’s also the possibility that bookstores and libraries will have to set up “adults-only” sections, behind which they can hide such dangerous material as Of Mice and Men. And every librarian and small retailer in the state will have to stay up late with all their new acquisitions, vetting them, trying to figure out if some “average” Arkansas cop with an axe to grind, or DA with an election coming up, if one of them walks into the store and sees this out where minors can view it, will it land me in a ruinous lawsuit?
The ACLU is on the case, of course. The Times-Record has some coverage, and also includes some choice quotes from the sponsor of Act 858, Rep. Kevin Anderson (R [of course!]-Rogers), who calls it a “parents’ rights bill”:
The intent was not to make any dramatic conflicts or limitations in folks’ rights or consumer’s rights. The intent was to get it out of the reach of minors. I tried to take a common-sense approach to addressing the problem to make sure parents’ rights are protected without dramatically affecting the right to free speech.
Kevin? Buddy? Word of advice? You want to avoid dramatic conflicts and limitations in folks’ First Amendment rights, you know what? You don’t pass dumbass laws like this. Okay? You have a problem with your kid seeing whatever-it-is you see on comic books that’s harmful to minors? Don’t let your kid go to comic book shops. Don’t want your kid seeing the Dixie Chicks naked on the cover of Entertainment Weekly? Keep your kid away from magazine racks. Uncomfortable with the idea of your kid picking up new ideas from books you haven’t approved? Forbid your own damn kid from going into bookstores and libraries. Leave the rest of us alone, okay? I don’t care how “pure” your intentions are, you don’t pass a sweeping law aimed at censoring reality and the way we look at it and talk about it with each other in support of your own stunted, futile, horribly limited idea of protecting minors and then get to claim you “tried to take a common-sense approach.”
And one more thing? I don’t care how many rules you put into place, how stringently you try to shield your kid’s eyes from the nature of the world as it is—your kid already knows what the word “fuck” means. Your kid’s seen a picture of a naked woman lying back all come-hither on satin sheets, a picture that’s almost falling apart from where it’s been folded six or eight times and stuffed in a wallet. Your kid’s sat at the back of the bus on the way to camp and giggled when the dog-eared copy of Lace got passed to them, the one with the crease in the spine that falls open to that scene with the playboy and the goldfish. Okay? Your kid already knows. You can either admit that, deal with it, give your kid the benefit of your own insight and experience in dealing with this seamy side of pop culture that we will always have with us, you can try to communicate the principles you think your kid will need to make it past this Scylla and Charybdis we all negotiated ourselves back in the day—or you can pop your fingers in your ears and cry “La la la la la la la” and stick your head in the sand until it all goes away and your kid is 18 and magically able to handle this stuff and you don’t have to think about it ever. It’s your choice, what you want to do yourself, with your own kid.
What you can’t do is drag the rest of us into the sand with you. Okay?
Beginning at home.
Max Sawicky manages to make me feel better about the decision I’d already made regarding tomorrow’s MoveOn.org primary. (And Chas—who really ought to post something new to Alas, already—has a good point about the Freepers’ plans to stuff the primary: it’d be much smarter for them to vote Lieberman, for God’s sake.)
So I’ll go on to further legitimize for myself, at least, the efforts of a dotcom bubble hold-over to play hardball with the big boys, by quoting some progressively patriotic platitudes, so I can think I’m Doing Something, and anyway I missed the interview the first time ’round—
My government, my country and the current political international crises are my problems because I’m an adult American. I find that, unwittingly sometimes, I feel more connected to the superstructures of society. We’re born into these systems, but we’re very much outside them when we’re young. It’s like it’s not our society. We have no power. We’re only learning, really, how it works and what our role in it is. I’m writing about big-P politics for the first time, just because it’s more a part of my life now. Suddenly I’m a voting adult and it’s my job to fix it.
After all, she did say every tool is a weapon, if you hold it right.
And you will know me by the peals of laughter.
Past the halfway mark in the new Potter (I’ve also been prepping a kitchen for priming and painting this week and prepping my office to put in a new ceiling, and there was that rented copy of Topkapi we had to watch, so I haven’t been lying around reading all day as I’d otherwise like to have been) (and oh, yeah, I’m not spilling much by way of beans, but if you haven’t yet dug in and want to remain hermetically spoiler-free, you might want to take a pass on this one), and I’ve been amusing myself by pondering: how on earth—given the spectre of leave-no-child-behind teaching-to-the-test education reform haunting the book, the problems caused by officious politicians too small for the task at hand running around doing something because being seen as doing something right now is better than taking the time to think about what it is you really ought to be doing and why, to say nothing of haring off after convenient “bad guys” that can be found and caught and dealt with rather than facing up to more difficult and inconvenient though much more dangerous antagonists, the running thread of Big Content journalism being co-opted as governmental propaganda, and the overarching threat of Voldemort’s ideas as regards wiping clean the wizarding world and drowning its ministries and education system in the bathtub—I’ve been amusing myself, see, in between turning pages with an enjoyable alacrity, by trying to suss out how, exactly, the usual suspects will get around to spinning this as Harry Bush. (George W. Potter, perhaps, for those of a less juvenile bent.)
It hit me, yesterday, as I was working my way through my second cup of coffee. Ladies and gentlemen of the various pundit watches, your assignment, should you choose to accept it: keep a weather-eye out for the first to take us liberal nattering nabobs of negativity, who insist that those pesky WMDs were never there, and this is a problem, and, hem hem, compare us with Dolores Jane Umbridge, Undersecretary to the Minister of Magic and High Inquisitor at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, asking impertinent questions at all the wrong moments and just generally getting in the way of George W. Potter and his plucky Coalition of the Phoenix, keeping them from Doing Whatever It Is That Needs Getting Done.
—Until then, back to Severus and the Order of Phoenix. —I mean, Harry. Yeah. (Snape does not yet seem too terribly incorporeal, Sam. And Julia: you still owe us some theorizing, unless I missed it. Pony up, would you?)
A statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount of overblocking abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
—Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Children’s Internet Protection Act. Could we maybe get some bright script kidz to whip up an internet filter that replaces offensive, commonly filtered terms like “breast cancer” and “gay and lesbian youth” and “wiccan religion” with code words like Rehnquist and Thomas and Scalia and Kennedy and Breyer and O’Connor? Or would that not pass muster, somehow?
Party like it’s 1998.
Scott McCloud’s going to release his new comic, The Right Number, on the internet. It’ll be available for the low, low price of 25 cents. —Ladies and gentlemen: micropayments.
Rinsing certain tastes out of my mouth.
Tomorrow is the solstice, of course. The sun will reach the zenith of its analemma; the Oak King, distracted, will show the Holly King (who says, I only want to be sure you’re safe; I only want to know how very hard it is to harm you) the one way he can be killed, and the Holly King will turn treacher and strike. And then the days will grow shorter—so slowly that at first we will not notice, tumbling headlong through the high white heat of summer—until the first crisp breeze nips our nose, and we’re well on our way toward the cold dead end of the year.
If anything interesting happens to you in all of that, and you manage to wrap it up in 250 words of less-than-fictional prose by 28 June, slip it into a Word document and email it to Dale Keiger for consideration in the Microstories Summer Solstice 2003 project, would you? I think he’d like that.
Treason.
Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Ann Coulter wants to rehabilitate McCarthy. You do the math.
Morons.
Democrats are ponying up for the 2004 GOP convention—out of their pride in New York City.
They’re paying out of their own pockets to support a party that’s capitalized in an incredibly ugly fashion on the greatest tragedy ever to strike the city, or the country, milking it for political capital in the greatest roll-back of civil liberties this country has ever seen. They’re paying out of their own pockets to support a party that intends to use the memorial of 3000 New Yorkers as a backdrop for the 2004 presidential campaign. They’re paying out of their own pockets to support a party that’s starving New York City at every turn of basic funding—to say nothing of the extra monies needed to keep it, and all the rest of us, safe.
If they had any pride in New York City at all, they’d put their money back in their pockets and tell the GOP to go fuck themselves.
Nixon, when in China.
Prompted by my grudging paen to a conservative Christian Republican, Michael Bowen of Alabama writes to let me know of his blog, A Minority of One, which he’s dedicating to covering Governor Bob Riley’s (bold! audacious!) plan to render Alabama’s tax code as somewhat more progressive than its current state. I’ve added him to the linchinography, and heartily commend him to your attention on this topic: he’s dug in and found some fascinating stuff. Like the fact that, while timber companies, largely out-of-state conglomerate, own 25% of the state’s land, due to a quirk in the current state tax structure, tax revenues from timber and agriculture properties combined bring in less than 2% of the state’s property tax revenue. [Ed. note— Timber companies own 25% of Alabama’s timberland. Timberland makes up 71% of the state’s land. That 71%, owned by corporations and individuals, brings in 2% of the state’s property tax revenue. Correction supplied in comments by Mr. Bowen. Management humbly apologies for the misreading.] Or that the national Republicans are taking note, and do not like what Riley’s doing; Dick Armey’s coming to Alabama to denounce the plan. Or the rather astonishing efforts of the Mobile Register to spin their own poll: “Survey finds voters oppose governor’s $1.2 billion tax plan,” says the headline—of a poll that’s a 44/43 split with a 5-point margin of error.
Best, perhaps, is his take-down of the odious Christian Colation of Alabama. Their refutation of the proposed tax plan, for instance, cites the Bloomberg Wealth Manager rates Alabama’s tax plan as 9th in the US in terms of “wealth friendliness” towards families, and gives Alabama’s current tax code a B+. Sounds like things aren’t such a raw deal after all, right? Well, Bowen did his homework, and looked at the specs of that Bloomberg Wealth Manager survey. Here’s how they defined the families towards which the Alabama tax code is so wealth-friendly:
He used four hypothetical families whose sources of wealth are highly concentrated in either wages, real assets, mixed (real and financial) assets, or retirement income. Well, that seems fair enough. Here are the asset profiles that he used for the four families:
For the family that derives most of its wealth from salary, we assigned $500,000 in adjusted gross income; $12,500 in long-term capital gains; $12,500 in municipal-bond interest from another state; a home value of $250,000; and spending of $30,000 ($10,000 on food, $2,000 on prescriptions, $1,000 on other medications, 1,000 gallons of gas).
For the family that derives most of its wealth from real assets, we assigned $100,000 in adjusted gross income; $12,500 in long-term capital gains; $12,500 in municipal-bond interest from another state; a home value of $1 million; and spending of $20,000 ($10,000 on food, $2,000 on prescriptions, $1,000 for other medications, 600 gallons of gas).
For the family that derives most of its wealth from mixed assets, we assigned $500,000 in adjusted gross income; $50,000 split among long-term capital gains, municipal-bond interest from another state, and interest from Treasury securities; a home value of $500,000; and spending of $25,000 ($10,000 on food, $2,000 on prescriptions, $1,000 for other medications, 600 gallons of gas).
For the family in retirement, we assigned no earned income; $100,000 split among long-term capital gains, municipal-bond interest from another state, and interest from Treasury securities; $30,000 in pensions; $23,868 in Social Security; a home value of $500,000; and spending of $25,000 ($10,000 on food, $4,000 on prescriptions, $2,000 for other medications, 1,000 gallons of gas).
Let’s review some basic facts, shall we?
- Most Americans believe between 1 and 5 million Americans live in poverty.
- The actual number is 33 million.
- Most American believe the poverty level for a family of four is $35,000 a year.
- The actual classification as set by the Census Bureau for a family of four is $18,104 a year.
- Alabamians start paying state income tax on incomes of $4,600 a year.
- Alabamians who make less than $13,000 a year pay 10.9% of their income in state and local taxes.
- Alabamians who make more than $290,000 pay 4.1% of their income in state and local taxes.
Wealth-friendly, indeed. This isn’t class war; the war is fucking over. This is a class empire. With oppressed class colonies struggling under class viceroys watching their resource-based monoculture economies of timber and chickens and minimum-wage employment get sucked dry right out from under them. Dick Armey is lying when he says of Riley’s plan, “Family budgets are already stretched to the limit and most can’t absorb the strain of losing more money from their paychecks. The Governor shouldn’t pass the mistakes of government on to the hard-working people of Alabama.” That is not what Riley’s doing. Riley’s working to shift the tax burden from them what hasn’t to them what has, and them what has are getting upset. It’s that simple.
Only Nixon could go to China; only Clinton could “reform” welfare. Only a conservative Republican governor, perhaps, could have gotten as far as Riley has in turning back the regressive tax tide so beloved of folks like Grover “drown it in a bathtub” Norquist. That doesn’t mean that Democrats and progressives and moderate Republicans (where the hell are you guys?) who are sick and tired and terrified of the “wiped clean” mentality can’t capitalize on this struggle. Bowen notes a number of editorials from around the country who are taking note of what Governor Riley’s trying to do. Alabama is far from the only state reeling under a budget crisis imposed by the federal government’s gross dereliction of duty. It’s far from the only state whose regressive code could use an overhaul. This has legs. This is a chink in the teflon. This is a turning point. This is the bellweather and the watershed. The day of 9 September, when Alabamians go to the polls to decide the fate of Riley’s plan, is going to be a red-letter day.
And as of right now, I’m cheering for Riley—a conservative Republican—all the way.
Fluff.
Just wanted to counteract the sniggering, condescending, and spiteful links that this piece is sure to generate by noting that my own (admittedly lackluster) interest in seeing Matrix Reloaded just doubled.
Apparently, they serve cake.
So it’s a day for short, pithy, comics-focussed entries about the Spouse. —The Friends of Lulu, a national organization whose main purpose is to promote and encourage female readership and participation in the comic book industry, has announced the nominations for their various awards, to be presented (with cake) at a ceremony during the San Diego Comic-Con, on Thursday 17 July. And it seems one Jenn Manley Lee is up for the Kim Yale Award for Best New Female Talent.
Congratulations, Jenn. You’ve more than earned it.
Tomato, tomahtoe.
The Spouse went and started herself a mild donnybrook on which is easier: prose, or comics; words, or pictures. And you know me: I’m going to say both, and neither, and would you look at this interesting heirloom varietal right smack dab in the middle? (I like having my tomato and eating it, too.) —Anyway. You have a stake in either, or both, you might want to go see what’s being flung about and slap your own two cents into the fray. Me, I’ve got to go see a man about horse.
Currently showing on fine liberal refrigerators everywhere.
Barry’s right: this is a delightfully savage cartoon. —Kick ass and take names, Kevin.
An open letter to Figg Vanderhyde, among others.
I don’t have a septic tank problem. Not even a “septic tank problem (bWqx2M).”
I don’t even have a septic tank. Okay?
So I don’t need to dramatically increase its life and effectiveness with SPC, which breaks down large waste materials into smaller particles and liquids so they pass through a septic system that doesn’t even exist. So I’m not going to try it out by clicking anywhere.
Given that, you might want to stop with the septic tank spam. Utterly wasted on me. Moreso than most.
(I mean, at least the barnyard lesbian lolitas attracting men with larger breasts that went all night were momentarily entertaining…)
I have no response to that.
The increasingly incomparable Daily Howler on why we have the world we do and what we face as we try to change it—
For the record, Carlson had explained Gore’s lousy coverage in real time, in a way that was even more revealing. On Tuesday, October 10, 2000, Carlson appeared on Imus in the Morning to discuss press coverage of Bush and Gore’s first debate. As she noted, Gore was being slammed as a liar because of a few trivial misstatements. Much larger howlers were being ignored—misstatements by Bush about policy matters. Speaking with Imus, Carlson explained the press corps’ apparent double standard:
CARLSON (10/10/00): Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now. We can’t disprove that there’s going to be a chicken in every pot.
According to Carlson, the press had focused on what was easy. She explained in a bit more detail:
CARLSON: You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.
It was “fun” to disprove Gore’s errors! Carlson took her presentation through one more startling iteration:
CARLSON: I actually happen to know people who need government, and so they would care more about the programs, and more about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.
What an astonishing presentation! According to Carlson, the press was pursuing Gore’s trivial errors because it was “greatly entertaining” to do so. And why had they ignored Bush’s errors, which she found more significant? Because they weren’t as easy to disprove! According to Carlson, the press agenda had been set by what was “easy”—and “entertaining” and “fun.” It was “sport.”
For extra credit, factor in this amazing Eschaton post on the decline of academia in our political life and the concomitant rise of the think-tank echo chamber. Be sure to follow all the links—if not, you’ll miss Michael Bérubé’s decade-long one-two punch. (Unless, of course, you’ve already seen it. In which case, why hadn’t you told me about it?)
Days like this, I think there’s only one thing left to do, and that’s take Bérubé’s 1991 joke as a serious plan of action:
Just the other day a friend and I came up with the most pernicious academic scheme to date for toppling the West: he will kneel behind the West on all fours. I will push it backwards over him.
Ask yourself what democracy was like.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden reminds us that back on 4 June, the House once again passed an amendment to the Constitution that would grant Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Sigh.
It’s important to remember that this is, as Democrats have put it, a Republican rite of spring. Score points with the freepi back home by passing a useless law everyone knows the sensible solons of the Senate will decline to bless with a two-thirds majority. It’s happened that way five times in the past eight years, after all. Yawn, ho-hum, they’re wasting time and money and cheapening the country’s rhetoric, but at least the ACLU can use it to drum up a little more when they pass the hat. So laugh it off: ha ha ha.
But it’s also important to keep in mind the rules are changing:
A telling anecdote: When an employee tried to stop Mr. DeLay from smoking a cigar on government property, the majority leader shouted, “I am the federal government.” Not quite, not yet, but he’s getting there.
[...]
There’s no point in getting mad at Mr. DeLay and his clique: they are what they are. I do, however, get angry at moderates, liberals and traditional conservatives who avert their eyes, pretending that current disputes are just politics as usual. They aren’t—what we’re looking at here is a radical power play, which if it succeeds will transform our country. Yet it’s considered uncool to point that out.
It’s also tempting, at first, to laugh off an attempt by one tiny set of non-governmental organizations to decide that the efforts of another tiny set of non-governmental organizations are detrimental to our country, after all. Pot? Kettle’s on line one. Project much? —But watch what’s happening on the ground:
Last week, Save the Children and Mercy Corps, a Portland humanitarian organization, objected to a demand that all contact with journalists be filtered through USAID in order to qualify for the same development program turned down by CARE, IRC and WorldVision.
The media restriction, which one NGO official called “unprecedented,” was imposed soon after USAID Director Andrew Natsios told a forum of InterAction, the largest alliance of American humanitarian groups working overseas, that NGOs fulfilling U.S. contracts are “an arm of the US government” and should do a better job highlighting ties to the Bush administration if they want to continue receiving funds for overseas projects.
So I guess the point is the old one about eternal vigilance and evil triumphing if good folks do nothing: pick up the phone, fire up the email, contact your Senators, and point them to this eloquent argument that an amendment forbidding the “desecration” of the flag strikes at the very heart of the religions of the People of the Book. Then tell them that food and water and aid for the Iraqis we’ve dispossessed is far more important than keeping some NGOs on message. —We can still do our best to keep the rules from changing. Tom DeLay isn’t the federal government yet, by God, and the sky’s still blue in my neck of the woods.
Though it is acquiring a distinctly greenish cast…
No, I Claudius.
From Patrick Farley, genteel proprietor of that of which androids do dream:
The Which I, Claudius Character Are You? quiz.
(Me? I’m Clau- Clau- Claudius. Who else?)
