I thoroughly enjoyed Michael Scherer's article, and it really got me thinking about how involved and effective fringe elements are ever going to be. I did not put much thought into it back in 2000, because I could not even remotely conceive that George Bush would win the election (well. . .). Now that we know what we know, does the values crowd believe themselves to be integral to the policies that are being formulated? Because they have nowhere else to go but the Republican Party, the only way they can punish some apostate is to stay home on Election Day; they cannot back any other party, nor are they strong enough to field their own candidates. (I believe the last Conservative Party victor of note was Senator James Buckley of New York in 1970). Their resentment boils over yet again because they don't realize that, sure they add spice, but they are not the whole enchilada. Bush is speaking to the ages now, and the churchy concerns of their adored heartland will no longer fill the presidential agenda.

They can gripe and complain, issue dark threats, and grumble about their causes left unaddressed, but the fact remains that Bush threw in enough guns and abortion speeches to get elected. We all know, however, that there is no room for Jesus in the boardroom. We see now that the administration came in seeking to strengthen the financial worth of those it deemed worthy of membership. The cronyism and sleaziness on display now is emblematic of that. The team around the Bushes co-opted these grassroots organizations, but, good grief, they are certainly not going to consort with them! Remember when Marilyn Quayle said during a speech, "They're laughing at you."? Back then she was referring to eastern liberals, but now even she would have to admit that it his her own branch of country club Republicans who are snickering at this crowd.

I didn't think much about how "Brokeback Mountain" would play once it had been released. Now, though, I am not surprised that it is doing well in Montana. There are some red states that are more libertarian than conservative; maybe we need a new color. Those are areas in which an attitude prevails in which, well, some things just aren't talked about. This is rank amateur sociology, I know, but I guess it's progress when the movie earns silence and shrugs rather than violence or revulsion.

For the past 20 years or so the decision to have a child has taken on bizarre intimations of heroic selflessness, the distinct possibility that this child may be the next Mozart or Freud (forgetting that Stalin and Vlad the Impaler had parents too), and an unspoken pact that we the childless should shut up, admire, and allow parents their indulgences. I'm done. I see articles like this and am sickened. Had this story been written about suburban parents, there would be the implicit class-consciousness angle, the grasping and crawling for status, while if it concerned middle- and working-class parents it would have had to address the anxiety of not being able to afford what is best for baby. Rich urban parents (one or two of whom are among my acquaintances) get away with merely looking slightly silly; some are even allowed to express a "what are you going to do?" attitude while snatching up all this pricey junk. The author does a good job detailing the idiocy, but I feel like a dope for having read it. I do, however, feel better for having written this.

I also wonder if "Brokeback Mountain" is fading, but I think there will be a double backlash. It's only the beginning of February and already the gay panic jokes are boring and beyond hacky. Those who speak "for the Heartland" (why am I capitalizing that?) say that Hollywood will stop at nothing to insult their values, promote an agenda, ad nauseum. Hollywood, with nothing on its mind but money, might begin to resent all the hectoring and stick with "Brokeback Mountain." I'm pulling for that or "Crash." I also hope that George Clooney gets something for his relentless good cheer, common sense, and palpable enjoyment of being a movie star.