Alison Bechdel

I have been accessing the Chester County Library System these last few months, "holding" books from other libraries in the system so that they can be transferred to my local library in Spring City. 

A few weeks ago, I picked up two books, one from a writer I have already mentioned, Elaine Pagels, about which I posted earlier this month, and a book by Alison Bechdel.

Bechdel is an American cartoonist who began documenting the life of herself and her friends in a comic strip known as "Dykes to Watch Out For" in the 1980's. The book I borrowed was titled "The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For", a compilation of various episodes from her long running strip. 

To say that Bechdel's efforts was/is groundbreaking is a monumental understatement. Besides creating one of the first representations of lesbians in pop culture, she helped popularize the Bechdel test which established a measure used to assess the representation of women in fiction, especially in film, the application of which clearly demonstrated the lack of women and their relationships in media. 

To pass the test, the film needed to feature at least two female characters who have a conversation about something other than a man. A bar seemingly low enough, but one which was not eclipsed very often.

"Dykes..." on the other hand bombards us with the details of the relationships between the mostly female characters, in addition to their political and social opinions. A perspective not common in the vast majority of movies, and frankly, history itself. 

In addition to this unique viewpoint, reading the compilation took me down memory lane, as all the critical issues since the 1980's were discussed, protested against, worried about, and survived, if even only barely.

In some ways, I was humbled, as Bechdel's characters most often act upon their strong beliefs. They go to rallies, form discussion groups, conference with others with similar ideals, and, of course, still manage to hold down jobs, pay their bills, establish long term relationships (even marry when finally legal to do so), and raise children.

They confront the establishment and the forces that try to prevent them from living their fullest lives, while living those lives despite their own character flaws. This is particularly demonstrated by the character Mo who is certainly a reflection of the author, but not immune to having her faults displayed in living color.

What struck me hardest however, was the simple fact that so many of the obstacles that Bechdel's alter egos faced, have not changed all that much. While it is true that the gay community is more widely accepted, the trans community is now the target of the same discrimination which hampered gay and lesbian people forty years ago. 

Even worse, the political situation surrounding the continued capitulation by Congress of its legislative and oversight duties, has worsened with the current administration. Today's Congress is even more spineless than before.

While I can't imagine how Mo, Ginger, Tina, Lois, Harriet, Clarice, Sparrow, etc would navigate the problems we face today, I am confident that they would be in the streets with their No Kings signs, and on the front lines protesting the assault on our environment.

I posted this under the label Equality, a label I have only used twice before. Below is a link to one of those, from early 2017. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/02/rudy-and-selflessness-of-majority.html

My biggest take away from "Essential Dykes..." is that Bechdel opened a window into a lifestyle that was unknown to me, while confirming my belief that the people within that community shared the same values, fears, and goals as myself and my family. 

But also, just like in the movie Rudy referred to above, it is only by association with those that are perceived to be different can we truly achieve the ideal of "all men are created equal". 

While I am not privy to Bechdel's reasoning for her comic strip, I would like to think that she wanted to demonstrate how many ways in which the gay/lesbian community was like the straight community, while also depicting some traits that made them different as well, traits not just related to which gender attracted them.

It is a point of view that we seem to have lost in America today, replaced by the emphasis on how we are different, who is more different, and the attachment of blame in conjunction to how those differences can be emphasized. 

Polarization on steroids.

And so the decline continues. 

  

Cruelty, and Shortsightedness

Back in May, I posted the following opinion concerning the intent of the Trump Administration in its dealings with, well, everyone. In it, I acknowledge that I was a bit surprised, not at the blatant cruelty exhibited by Trump's MAGA policies, not even at the admission by him and many of his acolytes who openly state that making it uncomfortable for illegal immigrants to remain in America is the point, but by the overt cruelty being shown to Americans, whether they work in the federal workforce, or identify as transgender, or merely disagree with the current administration's policies.

Trump, along with people like Tom Homan, Stephen Miller and Russel Vought, have no qualms about treating people, Americans or otherwise, with disdain and inhumanity in the name of their ideology. They are as far from Christians as one can be without actually wearing a swastika. 

As I have said a number of times in past posts, I no longer wonder why everyday Germans allowed, even participated in the attempted genocide of the Jewish people, as we are seeing, first hand, how millions of people who believe they will spend eternity in heaven, are OK with allowing the most vulnerable in our country, and around the globe, to suffer and die. 

Here is a link to that post about cruelty. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/03/cruelty-is-point.html

I originally was going to title this post Cruelty, and Stupidity, but thought I would soften it, a bit, in hopes that some who might have not read it, choose to read it.

So, again, I am mortified at the cruelty of so many of Trump's MAGA policies. But this kind of disagreement might be considered emanating from, and evoking deep emotions.

But they are also, from a rational, or logical viewpoint, shortsighted, or stupid, if I may be so bold, for a number of reasons.

Take tariffs. A tariff is a tax on an imported good which is designed to raise revenue, or equalize the cost of the same product when manufactured in the home country, or to influence trade policies between countries. 

The tax is paid for by the importer, which, unless that business decides to absorb the additional cost, is passed along to the consumer. Now, if all or most of that tax is passed along, everyday people pay more for the same product, leading to higher inflation, at least until a domestic manufacturer can match that new price, which won't necessarily equate to a lower price, but could result in more jobs at home. This seems to be the point of Trump's trade war, to bring jobs back to America.

But at the same time, he publicly reprimands, or threatens, any business that chooses to pass along that tax, which will not make the product more expensive, but which will also not incentivize a company to move the creation of that product back home. 

At that point, the revenue becomes the point, which is fine, but it also means that either the business paying the tariff has to sacrifice profitability, and most likely job expansion, or will be forced to pass along the cost due to pressure from stockholders, creating inflation.

As for attaining better trade pacts, again, certainly a laudable goal, but Trump's proposed tariff rates are not a reaction to high tariffs by our trading partners, but due to trade imbalances. America is the largest buyer of goods in the world which has created a dynamic in the business world in which providing the goods and services we demand, at an affordable price, is accomplished by seeking the cheapest labor costs, either by moving jobs to the Southern states of America, or more commonly, offshore.

I can remember many business people bragging about increasing the standard of living in poorer countries by their moving manufacturing to those places. It was a win-win, cheaper products for Americans, better profits for the business community. Heck, I worked for a small business from 2000-2008 which imported over 90% of our product from China. During the busy season, we had upwards of 40 people in the office and warehouse. It was a small business, began in a garage, that was built into a profitable company that provided a living wage to dozens of Americans. The American dream, or at least a piece of it.

All because the labor market in China enabled sporting goods to be manufactured, and shipped to America, at a price that was competitive with other sporting goods wholesalers. And, again, this practice was defended by conservatives as good for everyone, as it is certainly true that poverty levels in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc, were reduced through these efforts.

And, lets not forget that the vast amount of MAGA paraphernalia is made overseas.

So, if Trump wants to remake the global supply chain, that is certainly his prerogative, having been elected again, but it can not possibly happen without higher prices for the American consumer, and perhaps even a lower standard of living for all those overseas workers who are no longer employed, in addition to Americans who will not have the same purchasing power during the transition. 

So, on one hand, he can't brag about revenue while pretending that the revenue isn't paid for by the American consumer, then tout his trade agreements as negotiating strategies to bring manufacturing jobs back when those pacts are dependent on businesses whose only concern is going to be where they can get a guarantee of stability in trade policy. They won't make 3 and 5 year plans to build plants in America, with Trump's on again, off again, pattern. Let alone his recent tendency of TACO.

Plus, and let's not forget this detail, executive orders to raise and lower tariffs are considered unconstitutional. The court cases are still in motion. So again, does a forward looking corporation take a chance on a multi-billion dollar investment with a completion date in 2027 or 2028, when, in the meantime, these tariffs may be ruled to be an executive overreach, illegal, in other words, or, taken off the table, should there be an election in 2026 and the Dems win the House, or in 2028, should Trump actually leave the White House?

For me though, the greatest example of shortsightedness by the Trump Administration is its attempt to deport a few million people in the next few years when we consider that our birth rate is declining at the same time that our county is aging, and retiring. We need more workers, not less, yet Trump is deporting the very people, immigrants, who have formed the backbone of the American workforce for generations.

So, while AI may replace some jobs with robots, we will still need people willing to work in the lower paid jobs that have always been filled by newly arrived people to our country, while also needing more advanced skills for those who remain in the workforce. 

Which highlights another, and I will call it stupid, Trump focus, which is to make life miserable for young people who have student loan debt, while also discouraging our teenagers to attend college by reducing and eliminating programs which offset the costs.

At this point, there are actual times when Trump or one of his talking heads actively discourages young Americans from attending college. Can you imagine that, advocating for less educated people? I guess when the demographics of those who vote for you consists of a high percentage of voters without a college degree, it might make sense. But to pretend that such a shift away from college is good for America, let alone the businesses who require future workers with advanced knowledge, engineers, scientists, etc, not to mention our shortage of nurses and doctors, is foolish, in the extreme.

It is bad enough that young people, 35 years old and under, face difficulties in attaining home ownership and establishing funds for their futures, but to then make it harder for them to afford college, and the still documented economic advantage that a degree provides while also making student loan payments harsher, and eliminating public service forgiveness programs, is again, incredibly myopic. 

Speaking of public service, again, why would any young person seek such a job, considering that attacks on the federal work force. Despite the lie (I should say, another lie) about the evil deep state propagated by Trump and his allies, we will always need people to work in public service positions knowing the financial compensation is less than similar jobs in the public sector. Yet, the goal seems to be to scare our young men and women from such ideals. Again, no surprise from a person who is completely transactional in everything he does, but one would think that our elected public servants, regardless of party affiliation, would understand and appreciate what these people do for America. 

I certainly understand why the rich rail against IRS agents considering that it is the wealthy who avoid their taxes, to the tune of billions of dollars of uncollected dollars. What surprises me is that everyday voters buy into the lie that the IRS is coming after them, when there are many studies that show that slashing IRS staffing leads to less taxes being collected, generally from the rich who have clever accountants who hide money offshore, and/or use other tricks not available to regular tax payers.

But how does the everyday voter not understand that we need dedicated people to enforce pollution standards, inspect meat packing plants, work as air traffic controllers, audit our nation's books, guarantee fair labor relations, etc, etc, etc. The actual truth is that the federal work force, numerically, did not increase all that much from 1982 to 2023 while the overall population of the country has increased by 100 million people in those 40 years. See link below.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governmental-employees-in-the-us/ 

The reality is that we need more dedicated public servants in our federal work force, yet the Trump Project 2025 based philosophy is working against that requirement from both ends, eliminating jobs, in many cases without really knowing what those jobs entail, and discouraging the younger generations from considering those jobs as careers.      

Lastly, and most critically, is Trump's insistence that climate change is a hoax, but even worse, the capitulation of Congress to this ridiculous claim. For those of you still learning about the big, beautiful bill, there are multiple assaults in this area. 

First, the repeated attempts to claw back monies approved and in many cases, promised to businesses and individuals to install and maintain green energy projects, especially wind and solar as well as the elimination of subsidies going forward, even those that make roof top solar arrays less expensive. 

Also, whether merely as a reflection of how much money the fossil fuel industry pumps into our elections, or just because Trump is incapable of understanding how alternate energy sources work, he is doubling down on coal. While I imagine that none of his family will ever find themselves working in a coal mine, he doesn't seem to mind sending mostly red-state Americans to such dirty, dangerous jobs. 

So, while the demands on our electric grids continue to expand, he wants to eliminate the industries which have been responsible for the majority of growth in our country's energy creation.

As Forrest would say, "stupid is as stupid does."

In May of 2011, I wrote a story called The Energy Conundrum. At the time, it was set in the future, in the 2030's, a time not that far off as I type this today. It is the story of American shortsightedness as related to energy. Too bad our elected leaders didn't heed its message then, even sadder that Trump, the GOP, and millions of my fellow citizens are blind to its message today. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/05/energy-conundrum.html 

 

 

Oppenheimer

I finally watched the Oppenheimer movie that came out last year. Even though there was a lot of hype about it, "greatest movie of the century" etc, I enjoyed it more than I expected.

If you haven't seen it, and are planning to do so, you may not want to read this post as I will dive into the film. 

First, I hadn't remembered, or noticed, who was in the movie, so I was pleasantly surprised a number of times when I realized that Emily Blunt portrayed Kitty Oppenheimer, Matt Damon played General Grove, Gary Oldman was President Truman, and Robert Downey Jr depicted Lewis Strauss, in addition to others who had lesser roles, such as Tom Conti, Josh Hartnett, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branaugh and Casey Affleck. In many cases, I did not recognize the actor, the make-up and character they portrayed overriding the preconceived image of them in my head.

It was truly remarkable, just from this perspective.

More importantly though, the movie presented a story in which the main character, J. Robert Oppenheimer, is a flawed hero, a story line which I truly enjoy. And, to me, one which is far more true to life than the infantile perceptions that seem to permeate our society today, whether be about our founders, our country, or our current leadership. 

I've called this out, even in terms of glorifying the messenger for the message in the case of those who have brought us advanced spiritual lessons, but it is much more overt when people pretend that the founders were connected to the Divine, or that nothing bad has ever happened in America due to our special place in the Creator's eyes, or that every statement and action by our current president must be for the good of Americans just because of his constant statements to that effect and his red hat.

While I recognize that Hollywood alters reality to tell a good tale, I assume that Oppenheimer's struggles with his relationships, and his discipline in terms of the actual, scientific work in which he engaged, are relatively accurate. Certainly, it is true that he was a complicated person, someone who could seemingly listen to and argue for both sides of a debate with equal aplomb. 

As the movie progressed, he seemed wishy-washy at times, jettisoning what appeared to be a strong belief without concern if a new perspective, or influence, on that issue allowed him to move forward with his goal. 

After effectively leading the wide spread teams that eventually created the atomic bomb, an event that the vast majority of Americans at the time thought was justified, despite the horrific loss of life both at the time of the bombing and in the years afterward due to radiation poisoning, Oppenheimer lost his security clearance, along with his job and standing in the scientific community, because his reluctance to fully advocate for the development of the H-bomb, and his insistence that the technology be shared with our allies, in particular Russia, was interpreted as disloyalty to America.

The fact that one of the scientists that he recruited for the Manhattan Project, was indeed a spy for Russia, didn't help his cause, especially with the influence of Joseph McCarthy and his Red Scare tactics that drove hundreds of Americans out of government work, even civilian work in some cases, merely because they had at one time been affiliated with the American Communist Party, or associated with people who did. In Oppenheimer's case, his brother and sister-in-law, his early lover (Jean Tatlock), and even Kitty, his wife, were all at one time, registered members of that party, although, he, while making monetary donations, did not officially join.

It was so bad that in one of the more critical and shameful scenes during his security clearance hearing, General Grove, the man who had chosen Oppenheimer to be in charge of the testing and development of the A-bomb, was asked if he would clear Oppenheimer today, with the new guidelines that presumably included references to past associations with communists. Grove admitted he would not, based on the current protocols, while also expressing his belief that Oppenheimer was loyal to America, then and now. It appears that Grove is pained to admit this, knowing that such a technicality might have produced a different result without Oppenheimer leading the program.

Would America still have mastered the technology that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki without Oppenheimer's leadership and inquisitive mind? Probably. Would we still have achieved that goal before the Germans? Less probably. 

Yet, less than ten years later, Oppenheimer loses his security clearance precisely because that same inquisitive mind was able to entertain and discuss different political and economic systems with his friends and family. 

It is this kind of myopic thinking that seems so prevalent in America today, and not just in the GOP. I read an interesting article about the success of Zohran Mamdani in the recent New York City Democratic primary for mayor. The article referred to an alliance between Mamdani and Brad Lander, two people with very different perspectives on the Israel-Hamas war. Yet they were able to focus on those things they had in common, rather than that one issue so that due to the primary using ranked voting, each man encouraged his followers to rank the other second, and/or not rank ex-Governor Cuomo at all. As a result, Mamdani's seven point lead after first votes were counted almost doubled when second and third ranked votes were included in the final tally. 

It is a lesson the extremes in both parties need to heed but especially the Democrats, as it is clear that millions of people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 stayed home in 2024, while the GOP rallies behind everything Trump says and does, even when they have a history of disagreeing with a particular issue. While I might call that being spineless, it is politically effective, which, in the end, is the basis for a coalition's success. Disagree on the details, but always vote in unison when it matters.

Clearly, the absurd sway of McCarthy in the mid-50's in America, had it occurred in the mid-40's, might have resulted in a completely different ending to WW2 because McCarthy was all about one issue, rooting our communists, regardless of how that process was employed. All or nothing, no deviance.

What is even more interesting, is that in many ways, Oppenheimer was correct in his calls for cooperation and transparency with Russia, in terms of nuclear proliferation, rather than an all out arms war. While many in America might conclude that it was Russia that folded, and that both countries respected the MAD doctrine, even while accumulating enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the world hundreds of times over, it is also true that seven additional countries now possess nuclear weapons, and that others may soon join the list. 

Would things have been different had the adversarial relationship been replaced with one of cooperation and trust? The realist would say no, precisely because America and Russia did not trust each other despite the simple fact that for 80 years we have trusted them to not start a nuclear war, and vice-versa. 

As the movie progressed, Oppenheimer seemed to regret his decision to help unleash the nuclear age, not because he didn't realize it would happen with or without him, and not because he didn't believe in its use, but because he didn't trust governments, and the men who ran them, to grasp the obvious; a nuclear war is not winnable. The movie portrays his struggle with his place in history as someone who thought that once used, any sane person would realize that such power should never be used militarily again. 

Sadly, if we are to believe those who rant that Iran must never get a nuclear weapon, even if we have to bomb the hell out of them, because they will use it at once, then Oppenheimer's regret is proven. Even more so because should Iran develop a nuclear weapon and deploy it, should cooler heads not prevail, and I have zero faith in our current president to reflect such restraint, then the even more absurd proposition that a nuclear war is winnable could be tested. 

In a pivotal scene with Einstein, after WW2 was over and Oppenheimer was still riding high on his fame, there is a discussion between the men that the Downey Jr character had interpreted as the beginning of the campaign by Oppenheimer to turn all the important scientists against him. In reality, the conversation was more a reflection on how awards can sometimes indicate the end of one's career and influence, but mostly two men who knew that their work in physics had fundamentally changed the world, yet whether it was for the better or worse, was still up for debate.

Finally, towards the end of the movie, Kitty admonishes him for believing his one-time brilliance in helping America end the war against Japan, would give him carte blanche to say and do whatever he wished. It is sad that she was right although I don't think Oppenheimer ever really learned that lesson.  

 

Gnostic Gospels

As I have mentioned before, I began a subscription to The Atlantic a few months ago. In addition to the emails I receive daily with incredibly interesting articles by talented writers, I have received three monthly magazines to date. 

In the May edition, I was introduced to Elaine Pagels through a book review; The Atlantic has a few book reviews in each issue.

Pagels is an American historian of religion. She has conducted extensive research into the origins and history of Christianity, as well as Gnosticism, and so has written many books concerning these topics.

Gnostic Gospels is one such book, and the one which I recently read.

First, anyone who has read my posts, knows that I am a lapsed Catholic. While I admire and attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (see my literary effort called An Atheist For Christ), I do not believe in the two most basic tenets of Catholicism, that Jesus was the son of God, and that he died and rose from the dead to enable us sinners to gain eternity in heaven.

While it is possible that I had encountered Gnostic teachings at some point in my life, I never identified as a Gnostic, per se, although I have, at times, associated with being an agnostic, which, as I have now come to realize, is not the same as Gnosticism.

In December, 1945, an astonishing archeological discovery was made in Upper Egypt at a place called Nag Hammadi. Within an earthen jar buried some 1500 years earlier, were Coptic translations of even earlier manuscripts written in Greek. As research into this discovery continued, it became clear that the Nag Hammadi scrolls revealed gospels written in the first few hundred years after the life and death of Jesus. Further, these gospels were suppressed by the Church, as control of the direction of Christianity eventually favored an interpretation of Christ's life that these gospels did not support. 

In essence, these gospels represented a strain of Christianity that was popular in the first few centuries after Christ's death. They detail the main differences in the Gnostic version as compared to what we now know as the core tenants of Catholicism. 

To me, while it may seem obvious that any organization or belief system had to evolve from something, and that such evolution would have included cast aside beliefs, it is revealing to learn of some of those differences. I imagine it is part of Pagel's desire to research such debates as they reveal the arguments and disagreements of those early Christians, especially those people who dictated the direction of the Church, and the real meaning and lessons of Christ's life.

Again, to be clear, Pagels is a historian, someone who has spent much of her life teaching about and researching the origins of Christianity. She does not place value judgements on the competing interpretations of the meaning of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth, but instead presents those disparate explanations in the light of how those who believed them, who preached them, advocated for the advancement and fundamental tenets of Catholicism.

Her book Gnostic Gospels, portrays those clashes as the literal battle for the direction and structure of the future Church, as well as the foundational beliefs that would be passed along concerning the life and lessons of Jesus.

Of course, as a Catholic indoctrinated into the "winning" side of that battle, Gnostic beliefs were never communicated, or if mentioned, were done so as heretical beliefs to avoid, and condemn.

As I mentioned above, the requirement that humanity needs to be saved as a result of original sin has often bothered me. Here is the post I wrote on that subject subject in late 2023.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/original-sin.html 

So, again, in 1945 these scrolls are found that reveal multiple gospels, such as The Gospel of  Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, the Gospel to The Egyptians, The Secret Book of James, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Apocalypse of Peter, and many more, upwards of fifty two texts. All from the early centuries of the Christian era.

The book is very detailed, comparing quotes and details of events from one of these "discovered" gospels as compared to the four more recognized gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like the witness statements that often occur among multiple people in the aftermath of an historic event, these Gnostic Gospels discuss the same or similar events as those in the New Testament, but with differing interpretations and/or translations of the languages of the time. 

Remember, anything written about the life of Jesus was written in long dead languages that have been translated, a few times, as language has evolved in the past 2,000 years.

The book can be hard to get through, not due to esoteric discussions, but because Pagels knows her subject so well, and provides umpteen instances where the current, accepted version and interpretation of the life of Jesus, is not the accepted interpretation of the Gnostic gospels. 

Additionally, Pagels names names, literally those people who drove the discussions, and who made the choices that placed the Gnostic gospels outside the accepted dogma of the Church.

Pagels also elaborates on just why it was inevitable that the gnostics would lose the battle, as they emphasized the ability for knowledge, attained through individual searching, over the necessity of a structure with a hierarchy of authority, pope, bishops, pastors, etc, from whom the lessons of Christ's teachings needed to be learned and explained.

Again, for me, someone with a fairly strong anti-authority streak, the Gnostic interpretation seems more relevant, and attractive.

Whether that tendency touches on pride, and the danger of automatic rejection of anything that emanates from an authority figure, sort of like an advanced two year old who says No without thinking, well that is a different issue.

The discoveries at Nag Hammadi.

I assume I have never heard of these texts before because I did not spend my due diligence in researching my Catholic heritage in those days when I began to question its tenets, and/or because my source of such information would have been the hierarchy which suppressed those texts to begin with. Regardless, I am glad to have had this Aha moment, and grateful that Pagels has spent so much of her time in trying to understand, and communicate the origins of the religion to which I was born.   

I've written under the topic of religion many times. Two posts, link provided below, were the result of letters to the editor which were published in our local newspaper, back in 2010.

 https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/04/our-christian-founders.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/following-letter-was-published-in-my.html 

Finally, I reread a post from 2018 that was recently accessed by someone. It was not labeled under the "religion" banner, but it certainly reflects a morality, a social morality, that we seem to be getting further and further away from. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/05/individual-vs-group-success.html