November 05, 2004

A Few Days after the Election

A COUPLE OF DAYS HAVE Passed since the elections. I have calmed down. My indignation at the Republican strategy of splintering a vote in a key state by "chumming" the waters with an initiative sure to raise the ire and motivate their base has shifted from anger to begrudged admiration. When I look at move made in Ohio I must concede that it was brilliant (in a similar vein the idea of a low tech attack on the US using airliners was as brilliant as it was evil). I hate to see brain-power used to deceive and -in this fool's opinion- to harm the electorate. Limitation on the rights of any group is a diminution of my rights. Ohio has lost over 250,000 jobs in the last four years... but that is nothing when placed against the rights of gay persons to marry. There is a stark cynicism in that equation, one that a true amoral pragmatist steeped in the Machiavellian verba, would employ to his or her own ends. Brilliant? Absolutely. Moral? No. But the pure pragmatist will argue morality only to the degree that his or her purposes are served by the moral indignation of the manipulated electorate.

One hears echoes of Nietzsche: there is neither good nor evil,there is only power...

That begs the question of morality. An anonymous friend of the fool made some harsh comments on my last posting (both are there for your kind review: the Dancing Fool does not censor comments that are critical, indeed they are part of our dialog). Since I take all comments seriously I try to respond to all commentators. Sadly, the individual that made his or her comment did not feel that sharing an email addy was necessary. So my response is posted herein. My anonymous friend wrote:

"yor [sic] blatant use of women for your own gratification ... is frankly disgusting and a symptom of some of things that embarass [sic] me about America: the lack of respect for others and oneself; the instant gratification (how else would you have had sex with unknown women) and the belief that you have a god-given right to do just whatever the hell you want, regardless of the impact on society and others..."

I've edited the comment for space; the whole text is available on the previous posting. While my sexual experience was noted, it was not intended to be the centerpiece of the commentary. I was trying to draw a comparison between personal moral issues (sex being only one of several such issues) and a legislative agenda that is amoral and driven by a thirst for power. I know that I should write a draft before publishing and generally wait a bit before publishing. I value the written word and feel that clear prose is necessary. I overstated my example in that draft. I need to say what I mean in order to mean what I say. But I digress.

I must make a gentle corrective to my anonymous friend's posting. He or she has accused me of "blatant use of women" as objects of my personal satisfaction. I take exception to that characterization. I have noted in previous postings that I went through a period of sexual excess. I used sex as a drug. There are things that I did not do: I never misrepresented myself and never involved myself knowingly with an individual that was in a relationship (a concession to a deeply seeded moral streak). Any and all events of sexual intimacy were completely consensual and were in no way coerced. To be honest, I was not always the instigator. I came to know many women that craved a human touch but not a relationship. Others were content to be "friends with benefits."

The language of "use" implies a power-based paradigm wherein the woman is clearly just an object. That is the language of the victim who finds herself powerless to do otherwise. Clearly, it is inappropriate to this conversation. I wonder: Could men be objects or have we reduced the dyad to power-hungry men usurping the humanity of powerless women? Can a woman be the one controlling and asserting power over the man? I would submit that narrow parochialism is more damning than free expression of one's libido with consenting adults.

I will also defend your right to call me an ass to my grave as it is as much a right as is mine to sleep with whomever I wish.

The difficulty is that we have limited morality to sexuality and have forgotten that the true measure of a moral nation is the care that provides to its marginalized members. This stands at the heart of Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, the IDEA, and other legislative landmarks that defend the right of the marginalized. Should sexuality not also be afforded these protections?

Our nation was conceived of puritan roots. Sadly, this sort of puritanism is more easily offended by healthy sexuality than it is by the diminution of personal liberties. A truism is that my rights extend only to the point that they limit the rights of others. Nobody has an absolute right to anything. But certainly, an act that is comforting to both parties, done in the privacy of one's home, with the fully informed consent of both should not become the stuff of indignation, righteous or otherwise, especially when juxtiposed to the systematic dismantelling of civil liberties that the current administration has begun - and will continue - under the guise of protecting us from an unknown and unseen enemy.

Put bluntly, open your goddamed eyes. Who fucks whom is not the issue. The issues are the environment, freedom of speech, provision of healthcare to the poor, full employment, green energy, a just economic order, freedom to practice whatever religion my conscience dictates without fear of reprisals from my fellow citizens, provision of the right to marry to all person, provision of affordable housing to all, provision of the arts to all, and the list goes on and on and on...

I am ashamed of my country at this moment. We have have forgotten the core values that should shape us as a people: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing...

Ah, but I am only a fool...