If there is some Evil Genius or cabal of Illuminati out there behind the cycle of repetitive human interest stories that somehow reach every corner of the United States mass media, they’ve at least picked up one of the interesting on-going stories for today.

Because of Father’s Day, a number of outlets have chosen to dust off a standing human interest story that is, at least, a somewhat interesting and quasi-positive feature: the growing number of stay-at-home fathers.

The trend is a good one: although households with stay-at-home fathers are still a tiny minority (about 4% as well as I can estimate) of all households, they are on the rise (the 2000 Census showed an increase of 70% over the 1990 Census). Now, Right-wing polemics to one side, there is absolutely nothing wrong with households in which both parents share childrearing duties and also work outside of the house. But—as feminists have pointed out many, many times–homemaking and childrearing are important work in society, and they are only regarded as not real work—or simply not mentioned at all in discussions of labor and the economy—because they are jobs that are gender-coded female. The result of more women entering workplaces outside of homemaking and childrearing has been a number of significant shake-ups in the cultural and material underpinnings of patriarchy. One can hope that the result of more men entering into homemaking and childrearing will be the same.

Of course, worry-wort that I am, I have plenty of cavils and downsides to worry about. In particular, although an encouragingly large amount of the coverage has been purged of this disease, the old Backlash refrains still come around: CNN, for example, reported on the increasing number of men helping with childcare, etc.—as if spending all day at home cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids, etc., were some gift that men were chivalrously pitching in to help out the little woman, rather than necessary work that, in this particular household, a man is doing a disproportionate share of in return for financial support from his wife.

Another worry: every single family portrayed in these stories, as far as I can tell (including the San Fransisco Chronicle, Cherry Hill Courier Post, the CNN television report, etc.) has been a family where one or both parents have spent their time in white-collar, upper-middle class professional jobs. Nearly all of them have been white-skinned. Needless to say, all of them have been heterosexual married couples. Just a reminder of how constrained the debate is: all of the debating, measuring, studying, hectoring, and congratulating in the world is completely irrelevant to the many, many, households that simply can’t afford for either parent to stay at home or which are headed by single mothers or which are headed by gay, lesbian, or transgendered couples.

That’s to be expected, I suppose. But if it is important to open up our social norms to include stay-at-home fathers and make them visible, it is certainly just as important—and perhaps much more so—to open them up to include the huge variety of family structures that lie outside the whitebread, heterosexist norms that are standard requirements in the mass media human interest story. And we must continue to work for material improvements (like better access to childcare and healthcare, more flexible work arrangements, etc.) that can make happy, healthy families a reality—no matter what their demographic make-up happens to be.

Editors, Opelika-Auburn News:

Since I was at Toomer’s Corners when 250 people rallied for peace, and 100 people attended the candle-light vigil the following day, I was a bit puzzled to see Malcolm Cutchins dismiss Auburn peace efforts as a few candle holders.

Indeed, the Auburn rallies were part of a nation-wide call for peace, with 200,000 people marching in San Francisco, and half a million (500,000) marching in Washington–the largest peace demonstration in DC history. (Mr. Cutchins may find that rather small, but it was twice the size of the largest Vietnam-era peace march–ten times the 50,000 anti-abortion activists who marched later that week.)

What was even more puzzling was Cutchins’ attempt to portray the peace supporters as a few peaceniks, who only seem to outnumber the warhawks because of slanted media coverage.

In fact, the majority of Americans do not support war on Iraq.

Recent Zogby polls show more than half either actively oppose Mr. Bush’s rush to war (49%), or are unsure (4%). Warhawks are a large minority (47%), but they are still a minority. A strong majority of Americans (59%) oppose unilateral war. If peace supporters seem to be the majority, that’s because we are the majority.

Mr. Cutchins may think that he knows more about what most Americans believe than we do ourselves. But he can hardly expect us to agree with him.

Of course, popular causes are not always right. But in a democratic country, decisions that could condemn thousands to death should not be pushed through by an angry, vocal, hawkish minority. Before bombing kills thousands of Iraqi civilians–before our children come home in body-bags–the War Party needs to prove a specific threat that only war can stop. Until they give us that explanation, let’s step back and let the inspections work.

This Sunday I watched a very long and depressing line of speakers from the United States Bureau of Making Shit Up. James Woolsey (former head of the CIA and freelance war-hawk) speculated wildly and baselessly about possible connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda. An anonymous terrorism expert moved beyond baseless allegation into nothing more than vague insinuations–he was particularly a fan of the claim that the Beltway sniper is actually an al-Qaeda operative, in spite of the complete lack of any basis whatsoever for asserting this to be probable, let alone true. Bill Kristol then got on and talked for a while about the need to bomb the world and starve North Korea, and practically accusing Tom Daschle of treason for daring to question the President’s authoritarian and secretive attitude towards Congress and the American people on foreign policy issues.

Well, OK. I expect this shit from Fox News. But while they drone on, an astounding grassfire movement against the war is welling up. The latest development is something that should get the attention of every Right-wing Bomb the World Republican, every spineless amoral Democrat, and the few progressives and genuine Lefties that remain in DC. Over the past week, MoveOn PAC‘s Reward the Heroes drive has raised over 1 million dollars for the campaigns of Congresspeople and Senators who opposed the President’s resolution for war against Iraq. Over $1,000,000 in a week! And we’re not talking about Republican or DLC-style contributions from millionaires here. We’re talking about over 37,000 individual contributions. An average of about $27 per contribution (I gave two contributions of $25, personally). If the DC cognoscenti start taking notice, this could be a very big deal. Money talks in DC, and right now, the people are screaming at the top of their lungs.

Of course, this campaign–like all campaigns–has its limitations. Among them:

• It’s depressing that this action will talk much louder than the hundreds of thousands of calls, letters, and e-mails against war on Iraq that were sent out over the past several weeks. The pre-eminence of PAC money-laundering in politics is not a trend that I really want to see strengthened, although I’m willing to work to get through to Congress by pretty much any just means necessary right now.

• The campaign is primarily focusing on funnelling money to support incumbent Democrats who voted against the war. With the exception of that lying goat Paul Wellstone, I don’t have any objection to supporting those who have taken a stand against war. But I’d also like to see a lot more invested in getting new blood into Congress, not just giving established Lefty Democrats a political sinecure.

• Maintaining a Congress which is independent of the grip of the far Right is important, but we have to do a lot more than that to keep the country from going to hell in a handbasket. Slowing the bleeding will only do so much.

• MoveOn, for all of its virtues in moving Internet activism out into the offline world, makes no particular efforts to reach out to people other than those who can receive their e-mail alerts or access their website.

Again, the power of the Internet as an organizing medium is simply astounding, and we have to take very seriously how we are going to make the best use of it. The MoveOn PAC campaign is one very important way to put a lot of energy into grassroots campaigns, but we have to see this as only the start, and improve from here.

So what do we need to do?

• We need to follow up this campaign with more campaigns that move beyond online voting and make concrete actions. Contributing to campaigns where necessary, I guess, but also building up funding reserves for other purposes–organizing spaces, grassroots organizing (including workplace unionizing), and all the other infrastructure of a successful, anti-vanguardist resistance to the Right-wing Powers that Be. MoveOn PAC’s campaign is a brilliant example of a dynamic, exciting, creative way of standing up against the flow in DC and making them listen. Let’s come up with more ideas.

• We also need to talk about ways to allow online campaigns to reach out to people who don’t spend a lot of time on the Internet–people who tend to be older, poorer, racial minorities, etc. The Right doesn’t care: every CEO and arm-chair warhawk columnist has e-mail, Web access, and all the money the Right-wing foundations have to offer. But we have to work with people, not just dollars, and we have to think about building a mass movement. Otherwise, as Martin Striz pointed out in this space:

  Unfortunately, this nascent form of democratic political transformation is only relevant to those who have an Internet connection, and the unfortunate divide between the haves and have-nots will continue to plague us.

  So what can we do to pull that off? Well, simply focusing on campaigns that move offline and into the world of street protests, organizing spaces, letters to the editor, and other things in the meatspace will help. But let’s start thinking about other ways to convert Internet organizing into a galvanizing force for everyone. I don’t have many more ideas than anyone else on this–I’ve lobbied for printable posters and flyers to be available from all websites that advertise an offline political event, and I think that working on developing phone trees that spread from online to offline contacts would also be a really cool idea. But I’m a neophyte like everyone else and I’m really interested in hearing some creative ideas about where we can go from here.

In the meantime, toss a few bucks to the [MoveOn PAC][] Reward the Heroes campaign, and help make our voice heard in support of pro-peace candidates.

(This letter is part of the Open Letters BlogBurst against war on Iraq)

The Letter for Democrats

Dear Senator Daschle:

I am writing today to urge you to take a leadership role to stop the Bush administration’s plans for unprovoked war against Iraq.

As the Majority Leader in the Senate, you will have to choose whether to cooperate with the Bush administration’s lawless and politically-motivated plans for war, or to take a stand for the rule of law and the lives of innocent civilians. You will have a great deal of responsibility on your shoulders, and you will have to choose whether you will exercise it in the name of international aggression or international justice.

The Bush administration has floated over a dozen rationalizations for crying havoc, and yet no conclusive evidence has ever been produced which shows that the Iraqi government poses an imminent threat to the life or liberty of American citizens. After Iraq accepted the Bush administration’s demand for weapons inspectors to return, the administration turns around and declares that it will invade Iraq anyway. Unjustified by evidence and unsupported by the international community, the Bush administration is asking for your cooperation in a naked war for conquest.

This is literally a matter of life and death–for American men and women in uniform, and for the innocent Iraqi civilians who will be caught in the line of fire. As you prepare for the upcoming November elections, I urge you to remember that according to recent Zogby polls, the majority of Americans oppose unilateral war against Iraq, and that Americans consider the jobs and the domestic economy to be the most important issue in the upcoming election. The President’s rush to war is a transparent attempt to keep corporate corruption and the increasingly fragile economy off the front pages. If Democrats speak with a united voice against his asleep-at-the-wheel domestic policies and his October surprise warmongering, then they can easily make their case to the American public and clean up in the November elections. If, on the other hand, they remain divided and let the administration get away with its callous manipulations, they will lose–and they will deserve to lose. Today I join many other Americans in pledging that I will never vote for, and will actively work against, any Democrat who votes in favor of the Bush administration’s dangerous proposal for lawless aggression. I urge you to work to give the American people a principled alternative to Republican war-mongering–by voting against any resolution authorizing unprovoked war against Iraq.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing your views on this urgent issue.

The Letter for Republicans

Dear Senator Sessions:

In a matter of days, the Senate will have a choice to make.

The Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle is working to bring a resolution to the floor which would authorize President Bush to wage war against Iraq. You will have to choose whether to vote for or against war on Iraq. You will have to choose whether to sign off on unprovoked aggression, or to stand up for the rule of law and the lives of innocent civilians. There is a great deal of responsibility on your shoulders, and you will have to choose whether you will exercise it in the name of international aggression or international justice.

The Bush administration has floated over a dozen rationalizations for crying havoc, and yet no conclusive evidence has ever been produced which shows that the Iraqi government poses an imminent threat to the life or liberty of American citizens. After Iraq accepted the Bush administration’s demand for weapons inspectors to return, the administration turns around and declares that it will invade Iraq anyway. Unjustified by evidence and unsupported by the international community, the Bush administration is asking for your cooperation in a naked war for conquest.

This is literally a matter of life and death–for American men and women in uniform, and for the innocent Iraqi civilians who will be caught in the line of fire. As you prepare for the upcoming November elections, I remind you that the majority of Americans oppose unilateral war against Iraq. I have voted in every election since I became eligible, and I pledge today that I will never vote for, and will actively work against, any elected official who votes in favor of the Bush administration’s dangerous proposal for lawless aggression. As your constituent, I urge you to give Alabama a Senator we can support–by voting against any resolution authorizing the unprovoked use of force against Iraq.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing your views on this urgent issue.

P.S.

Now that Saddam Hussein has caved in and accepted the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, the Bush administration has declared that it doesn’t give a damn and it wants Congressional carte blanche to bomb Iraq whenever it pleases [NY Times]. Although they are lobbying the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing police action against Iraq, Bush wants Congress to authorize war whether or not the UN goes along with his transparent plan for conquest and plunder.

The toadies in the War Party of Congress — Daschle, Gephardt, Hastert, et al. — are all lining up to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, but there is a growing amount of grumbling amongst Congressional Democrats. With good reason — not only is Bush’s plan transparent conquest, it’s also transparent attempts at an October Surprise to derail the Democrats’ chances of holding on to the Senate and retaking the House in November by energizing a hawkish coattail once the anti-Iraq media blitz hits the airwaves. As Roderick Long has pointed out, Bush should get a t-shirt with his new slogan: Think locally, act globally.

The Bush-Rumsfeld junta claims that Iraq is a unique threat to the world:

Iraq is unique, Mr. Rumsfeld said. No other living dictator matches Saddam Hussein’s record of waging aggressive war against his neighbors, pursuing weapons of mass destruction, using them against his own people, launching missiles against his neighbors, brutalizing and torturing his own citizens, harboring terrorist networks, engaging in terrorist acts, including the attempted assassination of foreign officials, violating international commitments.

Rumsfeld is correct that the peace and welfare of a great many people in the world is in peril from a rogue state, which

• … pursues aggressive campaigns of conquest and plunder against sovereign states
• … has imprisoned thousands of its own civilians without basic civil rights protections
• … does everything it can to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and has threatened to use them unprovoked [*]
• … flouts international agreements and threatens war in violation of international law
• … has used poison gas against its own people in acts of repression
• … is goverened by a maniacally hawkish, unelected head of state

… and so on. But as you’ve probably guessed by now, it’s not Iraq. Anyone want to guess who it is? Anyone? Anyone?

In Other News

The Bush administration is, of course, doing everything it can to use the war issue as a media smokescreen over issues that it would prefer to go away, here’s a brief review of some U.S. news tidbits:

• Michael McConnell, the latest anti-choice extremist nominated to the federal bench by the Bush administration, faced the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Bush needs Democrats behind McConnell to get him past the committee, which has already struck down Charles Pickering’s and Priscilla Owen’s nominations.
• The domestic economy continues to falter, with a lacklustre retail season during the back-to-school period
• How war-crazy media toadies built a story by making shit up about the faux terrorism scare in Georgia
• The Congressional inquiry into September 11 was just released, and makes clear that the administration failed to take up intelligence leads for investigation or even warning of the public. The administration still refuses to declassify details concerning the reports received by the White House from intelligence agencies.