June 2009

Cha! Cha! Cha!

Ah, those Cha-Cha-Rita’s of Argentina! You know the ones. Of exquisite tan lines, curved hips and magnificent succulent parts. “I just met a girl named Maria!” Parts ain’t just parts to the Governor. “Parts” had the governor waxing e-mail eloquent on country western songs, the pleasures of tractor riding and the virtue of “scoops” of dirt. “Maria!” Oh, I so don’t want the Sanford affair to end. “Maria!”

I’ve decided America does indeed need a “In Defense of Marriage Act.” Yes, from Republicans. Ha! These guys are too funny. By now everyone has heard the tale of Governor Sanford and the Cha-Cha-Rita named Maria from Argentina. I am reminded of the song by Queen that goes, “Another One Bites the Dust.”

Speaking of which I was in New York City last week and there was a Gay rights parade commemorating Stonewall. This event took place 40 years ago and is considered a key moment in the beginning of civil rights for America’s Gay citizens. In the parade I saw a sign that read, “Mark Sanford. Just another politician with a conservative mind and a liberal penis.” It was credited to TV comedian Jon Stewart. Ha!

The best joke I’ve heard on the Governor and the Cha-Cha-Rita had the punchline that goes, “It shows just how far Republicans will go to win the Latin(a) vote!” Maria! Ha! “I just met a girl named Maria.” So vote for me!

I’m in New York for a week and this story breaks on Republican virtues, what? You’ve not heard of Republican virtues? Oh, puhleese! C’mon! Republican virtues are the ones where you stand looking so smug and holier than thou with one hand on your hip and the other hand is shaking its finger in your face and all you hear is “Thou shalt not!”

Examples. Thou shalt not run up humongous budget deficits. That one is forever owned by George Bush. Thou shalt have your children forever abstain from unmarried sex. Sarah Palin. Thou shalt not “boink” a woman (Or man! Ha!) other than one’s wife. So many Republicans own this one. Sanford, Ensign, Vitter, Larry Craig. My, my. Too many to list.

So virtuous! Me thinks you boys doth protest too much. It gets better.

This is what Governor Sanford said about Bill Clinton’s affair when he was a smug, sanctimonious congressman from South Carolina, “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign)… I come from the business side,” he said. “If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.”

Uh, Governor, I’ve yet to hear your resignation. What? You’re now King David? I so love these Bible quoting fools, nay, hypocrites.

And what tragically happens to this grand spectacle? It’s upstaged by Michael Jackson’s death. The Sanford ordeal could have gone on for weeks. Drip. More revelations of dalliances on the public dollar. Drip. More steamy e-mails. Drip. Pictures and “No Comments” from the Argentine Cha-Cha-Rita. Drip. More goofy press conferences where the Governor apologizes to Tiny Tim, football coach Steve Spurrier and Mother Teresa. Drip. John Deere asks the Governor for a tractor endorsement. Drip.

And Jackson ups and dies. Is that fair? To Farah Fawcett? We are such a superficial culture. And don’t-cha just love it! We have this torrid little story of hot thighs and hotter sighs featuring a beautiful Argentine Cha-Cha-Rita of “magnificent parts” with a little, strutting, tin-horn American Governor from some Southern third-world state (see health and education statistics on S.C.), a major conservative spokesman for Republican Party values who once demanded Clinton’s resignation, a hypocrite of “Biblical” proportions who now equates himself with King David of Old Testament fame and all this is taken off page one by the untimely death of some “Tickle me Elmo under the blankets,” pill-popping pedophile (alleged) who last had a hit song, what, a decade or so ago?

Go figure. I remember being in Quebec in 2006 when the Republican Party Mark Foley humiliation broke and how I so relished that scandal, too. It was delicious. Oh, thank you, God, for bringing low those who mock your word so! Ha! I don’t buy any of the “mocked God” inanity other than don’t point fingers and claim virtue when your feet are made of rapidly dissolving clay.

Swaggart, Baker, Foley, Craig, Palin, Vitter, Sanford, Ensign. On and on. They are all-of-the-same sanctimonious, falsely pious ilk.

None of this, none of it would have lasted more than a day or two if Sanford hadn’t been a self-righteous, finger-pointing “thou shalt not” hypocritical, holier-than-thou Republican. None of it. It would have come out that Sanford was indiscreet and we all would have wished him and his family well in their recovery as a family unit. If that is to be.

Folks, we are all adults here. Or, at least I hope we are. It’s time we all grew up. We need to mind our own business. MYOB! Mercifully so. We don’t need to be concerning ourselves with who is exchanging bodily liquids with whom. That is soooooo passé.

But about those “magnificent parts,” Governor? Indeed. Photos? Ha!

It’s a human train wreck we watch with splayed fingers. Made doubly intriguing by earlier claims of virtue and undone by the most reprehensible of human vices, hypocrisy.

The Republican Party is loaded with hubris and hypocrisy. Decouple those two qualities from your Party and you will regain relevance. Amen.

What Women Want.

Before I get into the “heart” of my topic this week, “What Women Want,” I am going to introduce a new feature for this column titled Art Picks. I will occasionally offer recommendations on the best of the old and new in art. Art is a broad inclusive subject, to me, dealing with the infinite forms of human expression. Because art appreciation is both an objective and subjective endeavor what you will get is my recommendation on “a” subject. “It’s art,” is a regular expression of mine. It has broad applications and implications and is a reasonable way to approach life and living. I’ll recommend what puts a kick in my step and joy in my heart.

Art Picks 0001: “The Soul of Ben Webster.” Ben Webster is/was an incredible jazz tenor saxophonist and this Verve Recording (314 527 475-2) from 1957 & 58 is simply the best CD I have purchased this year (possibly longer). It is stunning ear candy and the accompanying musicians are a “who’s who” of jazz greats including Oscar Peterson, Johnny Hodges, Billy Strayhorn & Herb Ellis. I ordered this specific CD from Amazon.com. Such music will change your week. At a minimum. Oh, and listen to 89.9 FM, our great local jazz station.

And now back to our regular scheduled programming.

Have you ever pondered the historic status of women? I’ve read a lot of history (notice that they don’t call it herstory) and one of the obvious “big” themes in history is the low status of women. Inexplicable to me is the incredible, relentless low regard in which men have considered women. I ask myself, “How can this be?”

I’ve read any number of explanations and theories on the subject. One of the most recent and intriguing is a sidebar thought by a researcher who thinks that man (as in species) did a quantum leap when we started to cook our food. The name of the book offering this new theory is ‘Catching Fire’ by Richard Wrangham. In it he suggests, “Cooking created and perpetuated a novel system of male superiority. It is not a pretty picture.” He thinks, “Cooking trapped women into a newly subservient role enforced by a male-dominated culture.”

That is just one of the many theories I’ve read over the years. Other arguments include the sheer size differential between males & females, the daunting physical requirements of living favoring the tough, the gnarly, the strong, the aggressiveness of males vs females (advantage male), the specific and unique role of the female sex (birth & motherhood), the “relative” vulnerability of the pregnant female or new mother and on and on along these lines of reasoning.

Intellectually, I find it challenging still to understand, acknowledging what I listed in the previous paragraph, as to why men came to believe that women were inferior and as a common human practice, subservient to men. Why is that? We have communicated verbally for thousands of years. How could the individual man not see and comprehend that the women in his life were every bit as intellectually equal as Og and Flog, his hunting buddies? That is what is confusing to me. On a very basic and fundamental level, how/why do you marginalize women? That is our history as a species.

In America, they gave the vote to emancipated male slaves before they would allow even white women to vote. Former male slaves were considered more capable and entitled to vote than the wives of the liberators. It is kind of staggering to consider the low regard that men have considered women. EVEN INTO THE 20th CENTURY!

Ironically (to me), one the most startling changes in the status of women occurred because one of history’s nastiest, most virulent anti-Semites challenged the doctrine (craziness) of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther changed history and the status of women two transforming ways. He married a woman and that started the clergy marrying women (consider the equalizing implications of that) and he insisted that all females learn to read (the Bible). My gawd, you’re going to teach a woman to read!?! What for? Too funny.

Regardless, it is a subject that has long intrigued me and last week I got to reflecting on “What Women Want?”

Before I address that subject directly, I recommend an essay in the July/August 2009 magazine The Atlantic titled, “The Case Against Marriage,” by Sandra Tsing Loh which is about as brutal an assessment of marriage imaginable. Seriously, read it and pass it on to your daughters or anyone contemplating the act. She calls a spade a shovel and soundly buries the institution.

I was being light-hearted in my contemplation of what women want but after reading Loh’s indictment, my tone adjusted. But I let it go for this essay.

Say you are attempting to “bed” (in the best, most honorable sense of the word) a woman. What sort of conversation is one going to have and what does every woman want to hear, bottom line. Seriously.

Let’s assume the chemistry is right. But there are still formalities (words, of course) to be hurdled. Every woman wants to hear what? They are attractive. They are desired. They are special. String it altogether with florid flashes of seductive, delicious wit, with assurances of sincerity, with suggestive promises of unparalleled eroticism, pleasure and release. What else? Two things. That what is going to happen (sex) is okay and is, naturally, the right thing to do. And that, two, you (the suitor) are okay. Better than okay-you’re finer than frog’s hair!

Anything else? You bet. String it altogether, all the troths, pledges, comments on beauty, desirability, their uniqueness; women want to hear they are smart, too. Inherently, obviously, professionally, emotionally and intrinsically. Smart. For who they are. For what they’ve accomplished. For being there. For being with you. For what follows.

It’s the dance we do. We humans. And don’t-cha just love it. It’s a two-step and men have their needs as well. But that is grist for another column.

What do women want? I once drove virtually nonstop to New Mexico from Florida listening (repeatedly) to one 45 minute long Cyndi Lauper CD that featured the same song over and over and over again to different beats, rhythms and arrangements. What do women want? Well, girls, just wanna have fun!

Amazing! So do men!

So, what happens?

The Absurdity of Certainty.

I’ve said it myself. Many times. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Actually ol’ Ralph Waldo said that but I like to use it when it’s convenient.

The question of the moment (in some circles) concerns rightwing goofballs such as Sean Inanity, Lush Bimbo, Glen Dreck and Bill Oh’Dufus and whether or not these sanctimonious media clowns are inciting America’s rightwing toxics to actively take up arms and commit violence in the name of purity, orthodoxy and idiocy. We’ve a number of recent examples where the cockroaches of the fascist Right have surfaced and murdered folks.

Whether or not it is coincidence or prescient foreshadowing, Homeland Security actually issued just such a warning earlier this year – that America should be on the alert for terrorists. For our very own latest iteration(s) of Timothy McVeigh. Homegrown. And rightwing. They are simple-minded, impotent little fascists whose brains have short-circuited on naive slogans, imaginary enemies and lifetimes of slights, insults and humiliations (whether real or invented). They are of a similar ilk as the terrorist “boys” of Islam. Without the complete absurdity of religion added in. Regardless we are dealing with the absurdity of certainty. It has kind of a ring to it. The absurdity of certainty.

I posed this question at a dinner party last Saturday night: To what degree are the Sean Inanity’s of the world egging on America’s nutjobs with their incendiary rhetoric against Barack Obama and his “vision” of/for America? I then asked: We all (around that dinner table) thought President Bush a certifiable, incoherent imbecile, a catastrophe for the nation and the world and an insult to the Enlightenment, rational thinking and the scientific process. Did the “Left” so vilify George Bush, was so guilty of “demonizing” the man and his rightward march to economic ruin and Constitutional subversion as to stir the pot of commie leftists to actually man the barricades, take up arms and bring out sweet Mother Guillotine to reclaim America?

But that the Left were so motivated and willing to hit the streets sans guillotine. More realistically, there was no “voice” of the left whose rhetoric even approaches the current apocalyptic rantings of Glen Dreck (I so love the delightful combination of religious certainty with the crystal clear my way/highway conviction of a reformed alcoholic) or Lush Bimbo (sends his “help” out to score his drugs). Oh, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann regularly gigged the President and had the audacity to keep a daily count of America’s victory in Iraq (absurdly announced by the President after “liberating” Iraq in 2003). That’s about it.

The Right pretty much owns the radio and television airwaves for bombastic hyperbole (dribble). They’re mining for simpletons and—EUREKA!—have they found a mother lode—a deep, rich American vein of aging, angry, simplistic whiteboys. Red-blooded, flag-waving patriots, don’t-cha know, who see a black president nominating a brown judge who will consistently screw, judicially speaking of course, white firemen!! Oh, Lordy!! Circle the wagons! Time to GUN-UP America! And gather a few scalps for the cause. For purity! For orthodoxy! For America!

I’m doubtful, however, that any of the wingnuts of the Right require encouragement from Republican Party spokesman, Lush Bimbo.

Question: Is it morally wrong to cash-in on America’s travails? I mean if Armageddon, the apocalypse and oh, for sure the rapture, are all hitting America simultaneously because the United States, in a corrupt election illegally elected a socialist, commie black man who in all probability is a closet Muslim, not even born in America! who has the temerity to actually take the nation’s healthcare away from the insurance and pharmacy corporations, and OH gawd, he’s an abortionist, too!!! Is it okay to cash in on all this fear (EVEN FAN IT!) like the rabid boys of the Right so uh, religiously, do? Yes, of course it is. It’s entertainment don’t-cha see. Or, it’s religion. In either venue, cashing in is just fine. Just ask’um.

Yet, the Rightwing goofs are not merely confined to the media, they’re in Congress, too. Any number of Republican Congressmen want to rename the Democratic Party to The Democratic Socialist Party or recently the Democratic Fascist Party. These children are too funny.

Yes, let’s see. Here’s a charge and a familiar rant: The Democrats, Obama want to take over America’s healthcare system and have, my gawd!, the G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T run it. Oh, horrors! Gather the kids, Ma!! Run for the hills. Grab your guns! Obama wants to take over America’s healthcare system from the, sob—How Dare He!—sob, insurance companies and the pharmacy corporations!!! Oh, woe is America!

I hate to disabuse any of the low wattage Congressional Republicans but, Kids, fascism is much more an historical phenomena of the Right. Sigh, many of them probably missed school the day history was actually taught or, perhaps they were home schooled for purity. And simplicity.

To answer the question on the table, I do not think the rantings of Bill-Oh, or Inanity were the impetus for any of the recent murderous, cowardly acts of the Righteous Right. Hopefully, these fools—Sean Inanity, Lush Bimbo, Glen Dreck and Bill Oh’Dufus—will collectively hang themselves in the court of public opinion but I don’t hold my breath on that one. For that to happen, the rapidly aging, white, male Boomer population will have to become as extinct (as negligible) as their thinking. I give them 15 more years. Tops. And then the nation will sigh in relief and collectively utter, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”

Who Owns ‘A’ Woman’s Body?

I recently had an animated conversation with my brother on abortion and while we are both in agreement that it is unequivocally a woman’s private choice, we were hotly going over the debate of when “life” begins and what to call “it.”

My brother argued from the position of fetus viability, while I do not take issue at all with the Pro-Life crowd’s determination that life begins at conception and, indeed, it is human.

Actually, it is a bit disingenuous (to me) to argue otherwise. What else would it (fertilized egg) be but human?

The question of reproductive rights is rife with emotion that for the life of me escapes me.

First, I do not think men (as in male) have one iota of a say in this issue. It is so fundamentally, so quintessentially a female consideration that men should respectfully bow out of the discussion. The biological fact that women, and only women, have a uterus and get pregnant precludes any legitimate argument men may offer regarding a specific fetus in a specific uterus. When men start growing uteruses, perhaps then, men could claim a “dog” in this debate.

Oh, it will be immediately suggested that the “dog” in this fight is a fetus. And I willingly acknowledge that what is aborted is human. “Tragic, unfortunate, murder, holocaust” are all words associated by some with the availability of abortion rights. I could just as easily use the words “necessary, appropriate, required, life-saving, wise and intelligent.”

The abortion issue can be reduced (for me) to one fundamental issue, “Does a woman own her body?” Is her body, indeed, hers? Is it? When a female is born in America, does she own her body up to the start of menses? But at the beginning of her monthly cycles, the ownership of her uterus, her body reverts to, oh, say, the state of Mississippi? That is exactly what the Pro-Life advocates are arguing. That a woman does not have ownership of her own body. Some “governing” body will. Inevitably. Own her body.

That is my reductionist take on the abortion controversy. And many will take umbrage with my characterization of the issue. They will say, “Women are aborting life.” They will use inflammatory yet accurate words such as “murder.”

If I were a specific woman (citizen), I would seriously consider if and when I had a child. Some of my considerations would be (if I were a woman) my health. Is it medically safe for me to reproduce? Can I financially support a child? Will I be able to devote the amount of time necessary to raise a child? Will an additional child be a burden to my existing family? Am I emotionally and mentally mature enough to have children? Am I in a relationship that is supportive of having a baby? Do I have dreams and ambitions that suggest “now” is not the time to reproduce? Is my fetus unhealthy-with the implication, if taken to term, of a lifetime of care that outstretches my desire or ability to provide such care? Was I raped and am now pregnant? Am I unhappy, depressed and/or simply unprepared to be a mother at this time in my life? I could write reason after reason as to why ‘A’ specific woman does not want to be pregnant, does not want to take a fetus to term.

Now what? I’ve acknowledged that life begins at conception and it is human. Now what? Because I have a daughter, she is to do what concerning the ownership of her body? Turn her body over to Florida and the state will determine for her that if ever pregnant, regardless the circumstances, regardless her dreams or wishes or wants or needs, she will take that fetus to term?

I consider abortion rights more fundamental than voting rights. Men, ask yourself this- “What part of your body would you hand over to the state? For decades?” How about your scrotum?

Women, ask yourself this- “Can I possibly know the circumstances under which ‘A’ woman finds herself pregnant, such that I demand that she take that pregnancy to term, her ‘body,’ her life be damned?”

Of course we can, some will argue. Abortion is murder. And we cannot countenance the murder of innocence. Really? Really!?!

It is at this point that I laugh in the face of those who argue about the murder of innocence. Historically, that is what humanity does. Quite efficiently I might add. We murder innocence. We do it for greed, revenge, even amusement. We’ve done it to secure national borders, we’ve done it while acquiring new lands and people. We do it in the name of God (most regularly). That is what we do as a species. Frequently we recruit innocent young lads and ship them off to yet another senseless war and innocence is murdered (in every sense of the meaning). Read Homer. Innocence was regularly murdered.

So, if you are going to argue that ‘A’ woman determines that she is going to abort something the size of this period ( . ) from her body for reasons specific and relevant to her and equate that with the murder of innocence, I laugh at your historical ignorance and question and challenge the consistency of your morality.

But not today because such arguments are meaningless, superfluous and a diversion. They are not germane to this discussion. The question on the table is: Who owns ‘A’ woman’s body? We are not debating any of the peripheral, extraneous issues associated with the act of abortion. They are irrelevant.

Who owns ‘A’ woman’s body in America? That is THE question. If you argue that the state owns ‘A’ woman’s body (as long as she is fertile) and can do with it as it pleases, that is the Pro-Life position.

Do not be deceived. Do not take your eye off the issue of what is being argued. We can debate this issue until we are blue in the face. But after all the rhetoric, the shouting, the name-calling (on both sides), we are still left with this fundamental core question: Who owns ‘A’ woman’s body? The woman herself? The state?

Who knows best what must be for ‘A’ woman? The state? Or, the woman?

Who do you want making such decisions for women? I firmly believe we leave such matters where they rightly, legitimately and ethically belong, in the individual hands of America’s daughters. They know what is best for them and our children.

Support Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando. Call: (407) 246-1788.

Where Every Bride Is Beautiful.

I was driving by a wedding reception last weekend, just off Park Avenue around dusk, and I looked over at a bridal party and all the bridesmaids milling about laughing and snapping pics with their cell phones. And I immediately thought of Garrison Keillor of Prairie Home Companion fame.

Each week on National Public Radio Keillor does a regular skit that features the news from the mythological Minnesota community of Lake Wobegon, “Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.” As I looked at the bride, the raw unfairness of nature immediately had me forming the words àla Garrison Keillor, “Where all the brides are beautiful . . .”

This woman, now married, at the apogee of nature’s reproductive “plan” was not beautiful. She never was and, in all probability, she never will be physically beautiful. Where every bride is beautiful . . . alas, life is not so ordered.

Nowhere in life is the indifference to fairness made clearer than what is randomly bestowed on some women. Oh, it helps to have attractive parents and if I were a betting man (my bets are never for more than a nickel or bragging rights), good looking parents, statistically speaking, produce better looking offspring. That said, out of the glorious soup of genetics, the Gods on occasion bestow on their favored the arbitrary gift of peerless beauty. And, sigh, some brides are gifted differently.

And is that fair? Is life fair? Should it be? If, right out of the chute (metaphorically speaking) life deals a Royal Flush (beauty) to a few and deuces to the masses, what does that say about the “nature” of things? Ah, the nature of things. What are we able to divine about the nature of things, such as fairness?

Well, monkeys know when they’re being screwed. I have chickens. And chickens, too, know when the goodies “ain’t” being fairly distributed. In test after test monkeys have demonstrated the ability to quickly differentiate when ol’ Mossback a cage over is getting more treats for no apparent reason, or worse, for the wrong reasons. In response, the unfairly treated monkey will sulk, shutdown or turn violent.

To extrapolate, because life is unfair, is it in society’s interest to address issues of inequality? I’m of two minds (perhaps more) on the subject. Let’s discuss an easy one first. Beauty. For as long as humans have had eyes and a mind to differentiate, beauty has been a prized and rewarded commodity. What we “average” folk have done in response to the patent unfairness of beauty for some and less for the rest is “intellectualize” the issue with pithy little bromides such as, “Beauty is as beauty does,” or “When the candles are out, all women are fair.” We acknowledge the vagaries of life, the unfairness of beauty by suggesting it is but one aspect of being a “complete” human being. Still, I am amazed at the gift some do receive.

Let’s move onto the gift of intelligence. I’m not talking here of environment but just the raw intellectual horsepower some are gifted with at birth. Again, how fair is that? Through nothing you did, you are gifted with a big brain. Or a creative brain. Or a focused brain. However you wish to describe an exceptional intellect or inherent ability, you have through no effort on your part been provided an enormous leg up on the rest of us. That’s a fact and it really is the luck of the draw although once again I believe, statistically speaking, “smarter” parents will produce more Lake Wobegon children. The stupid among us don’t care about this advantage and the rest of us, if so motivated, can attempt to square this circle with hard work, tenacity and that euphemism called “street smarts.”

I don’t have an envious bone in my body. Although I have said the only thing better than being Christopher Robin Jepson would be to be Christopher Robin Jepson Medici or Christopher Robin Jepson Rothschild.

Let’s briefly discuss the relative “unfairness” of inherited wealth. Again, through no effort on my part, I am born a Medici or a Rothschild. My ancestors bequeathed the Uffizi to Florence or wisely played the Waterloo card. Wealth to me is access to culture and experience. Inherited wealth often means just that. That old money in New York City was a result of piracy or slave trading or whatever (hard work & entrepreneurial ingenuity) is incidental to me and how I lead my life today. Although, I am amused (often greatly) when some family dynasty crashes (extinction) on the shores of excess, genetic mediocrity and/or laziness. Money does inevitably recirculate.

So we’ve covered unfairness as it deals with beauty, intellect and inherited wealth. But what about unfairness as a result of specific human constructs that intentionally skew the “game” to a select few? What about white America intentionally annihilating the Native Indian populations of North America for two hundred or so years? What about America’s black population that was for hundreds of years captured and enslaved by our ancestors even to the point of actually being in our governing document, the U.S. Constitution as three/fifths a human being for apportioning reasons? And then “Jim Crowed” for another one hundred years after being emancipated during the Civil war?

Oh, you say, that was so very long ago. But that it were, so very long ago. When white people bitterly complain about the “unfairness” of government initiatives and programs to deal with the results of America’s long, sordid, criminal history of discrimination against folks of color, I ask, “What should we do to correct the unfairness of opportunity that is our nation’s history?”

“Uh, uh, uh, we’ve just elected a black man president!”

And I say, “What a grand start.”

Kids, if we can not or will not follow through on what it takes, for as long as it takes, to creatively, constructively and consistently address the issue of fairness associated with the historic advantages of being white, we will have shirked our responsibility as human beings and as citizens of our “allegedly” great nation.

History will someday pass judgment on America, whether or not that, once, long ago (that’s us) the United States lived up to its promise as a democratic nation and as a just people.

Because beautiful people are advantaged by merely being beautiful does not imply that white people be advantaged simply for being white. That was old America. We are better and dare I say, more beautiful than that. Indeed, beauty is as beauty does.