(Very) personally ours

You can find this fine little throwback in a bathroom in my parents' house:

It has an expiration date of June 1998, which means it remained fresh well after K&B itself expired. It predates our family moving into the house, which means either we brought it with us from the old house, or the previous occupant of the house left it there. Either way, it's far too old to throw away now. I guess that's the sentiment.

We used to have a jar of grape jelly like that.

Raining on the Neighborhood

You know those loopy conversations friends have late at night that they rightfully want never spoken of again? Well, someone taped one of those, hacked into Fox News and aired it.

 

Seriously, don't watch this.

I'm as snarky as anyone, but Mr. Rogers? Come on. Only one person ever effectively made humor out of Fred Rogers, and that was Eddie Murphy (who, it must be noted, is not on Fox & Friends). And he did it not by lampooning the character, but by setting the same show in a bad neighborhood. Rogers actually liked the sketch so much that he approached Murphy personally to express his appreciation. That's the kind of person Rogers was, which is why he doesn't deserve this.

Rogers' message was that every child is special exactly the way they are. Like too many people these days, the Fox Friends apparently think "special" is a synonym for "spoiled." But I see the message the same way I did when I was a child — that one should not be insecure in their own skin, or try to be someone they're not. That they have intrinsic value, flaws and all. For some kids, their visit to the neighborhood was the only time they ever heard this. It's one of the greatest lessons anyone has ever taught.

And yet, Fox & Friends sees fit to mock Rogers and his lessons. They blame him for 25 years of self-absorption among young people — which aside from being an absurd allegation, also lowballs how long the Neighborhood was on the air. If he's to blame for the shortcomings of the most recent generations, he's also culpable for his role in molding the baby boomers sitting in those anchor's chairs.

Yes, some people take the "you are special" message and run with it into the realm of arrogance and entitlement. But for the most part, it's a desperately needed message in a cynical age where good people are increasingly urged to accept banal lots in life.

If nothing else, it's a far more appealing outlook on life than the one adopted by those who dismiss it.

A test of my faith in humanity

Rebecca Onion at Slate shares with us today a shocking Louisiana voter-literacy test from 1964.

Let me qualify what I mean by "shocking": I already knew that Southern counties and parishes often used arbitrary and deliberately frustrating "literacy tests" to stymie black voter registration. I saw that movie where a black woman had to correctly guess the number of jellybeans in a jar to register. And I'm aware it continues even today with the high-sheen voter-ID laws and the Supreme Court's recent and unbelievably boneheaded decision to end federal oversight of state voter laws. I didn't think I'd be surprised by anything of this ilk.

But until now, I'd never seen one of the actual tests. I'll never unsee it.

See the whole three-page headache here

Anybody else's head hurt? After reading each question five or six times (which took way longer than the entire allotted time), I began doubting my ability to read (which is apparently the point). I'd have to raise my hand a few times:

• What does it means to "draw a line around" something? Is that different than circling it, as demanded in later questions?

• What relevance does my ability to squiggle a line around some weird diagram have to literacy? Or, for that matter, the right to vote?

• On question 11, can I cross out all the zeros? That would make it technically correct, but I understand I'm being held to a rigorous standard here.

• What the hell is a "curved horizontal line," question 28?

• I'm pretty sure question 30 isn't even an independent clause. 

• By question 16, it should be poignantly clear to even the least-educated person that this entire test is a farce. I wonder if anyone ever got that far, considering the 10-minute time limit and the zero room for error.

I have a master's degree in English, which is a bombastic way of saying I'm literate. And I'm as flummoxed by this test as by the notion that it somehow underlies my ability to select my governmental representatives. Fortunately, I never would have taken it, because it was aimed at those with less than a fifth-grade education (or who couldn't prove such, because apparently one can?).

Funny thing, though — my grandmother had only a fifth-grade education (and no photo ID), and she voted all her life. I guess you could pass this test after all!

Oh, wait, she was white. Ah.

This, friends, is why we had the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the first place. That's what it took to get Louisiana and every state like it to stop this madness. I'm convinced several parishes here would still be doing this today if they could. Some might try again now, albeit in more stealth ways (the above-mentioned ID laws are already in the works).

For this reason, I think that every registered citizen over 18 should have their vote legally and constitutionally protected. Yes, that includes felons and the incarcerated. This is a new stance for me; in the past, I've been OK with the idea that those stripped of their freedom through a fair conviction should also be barred from voting. But I wonder now if it's possible to deny anyone the vote without blowback to others. Is barring felons from the polls worth the ability of officials to purge non-felons with the same names from the rolls? Are we worried that criminals will waste/mock their votes when many lawful voters do exactly the same thing without the value judgments? Is there any new restriction — voter ID, fewer polling locations, registration crackdowns — that won't deter honest people from voting? At best, these rules prevent a microscopic number of bad votes; at worst, they're weapons for America's worst leaders to enforce corruption and prejudice. Just like in the good ol' days.

To this day, some still think voting rights should be tied to taxes and/or property ownership. Many also insist racism is over. That these thoughts (which overlap considerably) exist is all the proof we need that the good old days aren't all that old.

This seems to be the thing to do today

How I think marriage should be:

• Between any two single, consenting adults.

• The state can't tell churches who they must marry.

• Churches can't tell the state whose marriages it can recognize.

• Churches need not be involved in marriages if couples so choose.

• The government, however, must register marriages to address any legal issues that may arise.

• The government does not interfere with a partnership, except where legal issues and/or immediate endangerment arise.

• All states should honor all legal marriages, because rights shouldn't stop at state borders.

• Divorce should not require unfair burden of proof.

I realize that complex legalities lie in between these lines. But these should be the only lines they have to lie between.

Wendy Davis - Now that's better!

There's an odd comfort in seeing politicians having to break the law to pass terrible legislation, even if they've been nitpicking about parliamentary procedure all night, and even if they get away with it in the short term.

It's not a great comfort, but it is one.

A premature requiem for racism

The absurd logic behind the Supreme Court's new ruling striking down federal oversight of state voter laws reminds me of another brilliant move we collectively made 13 years ago.

When George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000, his platform revolved largely around the idea that the U.S. Treasury had too much money, and that taxpayers deserved it back. (Yes, kids, terrorism wouldn't be on Bush's radar for another year, despite what his party's retroactive outrage over the USS Cole would have you believe.)

The Republican Party's view in 2000 was that our ship was righted, and thus it was time to restore the GOP to its 1980s glory. It's a pretty Orwellian thought, but it resonated with just enough Americans to sort of work (with an assist from the Supreme Court, of course).

With its latest decision, the Supreme Court is operating under similarly cracked logic — that because racism is allegedly over, there is no more need for some of the regulations that have diminished it.

Racism is NOT over. If it was, such a decision would be irrelevant. But to the degree that racism has fallen out of favor as a public sentiment, credit is due to the laws that curb state lawmakers' more nefarious impulses. Those people might not have had a change of heart, but they still faced accountability when making public decisions. No matter how much they wanted to, they couldn't simply change voting laws to disenfranchise groups of people. As a result, minorities were able to vote, if not completely free of impediment, at least free of the worst racial whims.

Those in favor of this ruling would have you believe that such institutional improvement was due to warmer hearts. It never was. These rules came to exist and still do in the first place because plenty of white people in power still wish, for whatever reason, to make it tougher for certain groups to vote.

Those are the people who cheer this decision. They publicly subscribe to the notion — and, sadly, have officials who should know better agreeing with them — that an unpleasant rule is one that isn't needed. This poisonous mindset is the one that has removed a lot of the cooling rods that governed the economy and civil rights in the past 12 years. Because, we're told, we don't need them anymore. By people who are dying to not have to follow them anymore. People who are living, breathing examples of why we did — and still do — need those laws in the books.

The Supreme Court, just as it did with its pet presidential case 13 years ago, dropped the ball here. They hope we didn't notice the inverted cause-and-effect at play in both cases. We did. And we won't forget it at ballot time.

In the crossfire with Paula Deen

Since Paula Deen's not-so-savory racial tendencies came to light this week, I've seen a handful of people defend her. Some say we've never heard her actually say any of things alleged in the court document, so it's best not to pass harsh judgment. Others argue a more nefarious point — that she's being punished due to a racial double-standard regarding the N-word.

"They can say it. Why can't I?"

I've heard that argument as long as I've been old enough to argue. White people, drop it right now. It's a losing proposition, and one you don't want to win anyway.

The best that can be said about the N-word is that the group once degraded by the term has reclaimed it. You see this a lot among persecuted groups as a form of empowerment. That said, such empowerment only goes so far, and the word has long since lost any positive connotation it might have had. Very few, if any, people say the word with an academic, intellectual connotation these days; it's mostly the province of R-rated entertainers and undereducated thugs. 

Which brings us back to Paula Deen. She's an older, Southern white woman who up until now has not shown a particular affinity for hip-hop culture. But if the deposition is to be believed, she does have a penchant for casual use of the epithet. Her desire to host a minstrel-themed wedding would be inexcusable if it were ironic, let alone as earnest as it apparently was. This isn't someone who based her use of language on what Kanye West was dropping; at best, she's a product of her generation and culture. Even so, she's unflinchingly comfortable with the idea of second-class citizenship, and she's had plenty of time to see the folly of that, as many her age have.

White people who are jealous of black people for saying the N-word overlook that the only people saying it are older racists and young/faux thugs. I can't imagine why anyone would want to emulate either group. But then, I don't understand the burning desire to use the word in the first place. Or the hatred behind it.