Young Crumudgeon

Allies in the struggle? Not so fast

2009-10-26T14:33:00.000-04:00

Skipping right over rap/hip-hop, uninvolved and irresponsible parents, and video games, the usual scapegoats blamed for all social evils, US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently placed much of the blame on the declining quality of US schools and education at the feet of the nation's schools, colleges, and departments of Education.

In a speech last Thursday at Columbia University's Teachers College, the nation's oldest and largest School of Education, Sec Duncan described what he sees as the role that the majority of teacher preparation programs play in producing mediocre teachers who then produce mediocre students.

Though he did note that there were exceptions, Sec Duncan's speech was an evisceration of higher education programs that seek to train future teachers. If you closed your eyes and tried hard enough you might have thought you were listening to the group who wrote A Nation at Risk in 1983.

It's good to know that as much as things may change, some things remain forever constant - always blame those in lower positions than you.

The Dept of Education press release describing the speech may be found here, and the full text of Sec Duncan's speech may be viewed here. You may also download a video of the speech here. The video is free, but you do need itunes. Time magazine ran an article on the Secretary's speech and the current administration's views on education.

Take a good look: This is the right

2009-09-14T21:04:00.024-04:00

Not everyone whose political beliefs fall somewhere on the right side of the spectrum are racist, ignorant, violent people. But unless and until the smart, sane, and humane folks on the right stand up and speak out, this is the face of their movement. The pictures here come from a collection of similar beauties. Please take a look at these horrifying pictures from the DC this weekend and pass them on.

And do not think for a moment that this will simply go away. Ignoring hate and violence has NEVER resulted in it disappearing.

Special thanks to Tim Wise for the heads-up on these pics. And more broadly, thanks to Tim for being an articulate, intelligent voice trying to draw attention to dire state of affairs related to our collective social consciousness, or more appropriately the lack thereof.

And check out Tim's latest appearance on CNN yesterday. Reacting to this segment and the several others Tim has done recently, today Lou Dobbs called Tim a "self-loathing creep." Responding to this comment, one that he takes as a compliment, Tim said, "Once again, to say that a white person condemning white racism is 'self-loathing' is like saying the very essence of being white is to BE a racist: that loving oneself as a white person requires endorsing white racism. Wow, Lou apparently doesn't think very much of white people...ironic, dontcha' think."

Religion, lovely religion

2009-09-14T10:50:00.006-04:00

Been slacking on the posting, so thought I'd post something to feel better about myself. Seems sort of redundant to say that, as having a blog is presumably all about engaging in activities in the general realm feeling better about yourself.

Nevertheless, working on a post that, like all my other posts, is much longer than I anticipated. I'm such a long-winded gasbag. Anyway, I wanted to draw attention to a couple items in the media from the past couple days that caught my eye.

First is a great piece in yesterday's (Sept 13) NY Times Sunday Magazine on the advocacy/activist/lobbying group J-Street. J-Street is pro-Israel group that acts as an alternative to AIPAC and other such hawkish, neo-con, anti-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim groups. As Founder & Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami said in the piece

We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to be noncritical. You don’t have to adopt the party line. It’s not, 'Israel, right or wrong.'

You should check out the piece and contribute to the work J-Street is doing.

The second piece is from Friday's online version of the Daily Telegraph. The piece discusses the difficulties a British film about Charles Darwin is having finding a distributor in the US because folks in the film industry think the subject is too controversial. In other words, the US is too religious and conservative to understand and appreciate a film about a man whose scientific discoveries came at a time after a profound crisis of faith. Or, and perhaps more to the point, too many Americans believe in magic, people returning from the dead, giant boats that housed two of every animal, and talking shrubbery (ie are dumb as shit) to even see a movie that may question their beliefs.

And you thought the tea party dumbasses were an aberration? Come on now.

Disrespecting the dead: Healthcare Reform and Kennedy's legacy

2009-08-28T15:37:00.002-04:00

Back from hiatus, more crumudgeony than ever.

I appreciate the sentiment of those who have suggested that if/when our esteemed members of Congress pass healthcare reform that the legislation be named after the recently deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). But appreciating this sentiment does not mean that I agree with it.

There are two major motives that seem to be driving folks to call for such an action. The first is fairly straightforward – Kennedy spent much of his career and life fighting for equity, and healthcare was one of his primary foci. Naming healthcare reform after him would be a symbolic move that would forever link his legacy to the legislation he fought so long and hard for. Though he died before it became a reality, naming the legislation after him would serve as a reminder for what can happen when you fight the good fight. This line of thinking is well intentioned, but is guided by an incredible amount of naivety, ignorance, romanticism, and sentimentalism. We’ll get back to this in a moment.

The other motive for attaching Kennedy’s name to healthcare reform is far more pragmatic. When the final draft of the bill(s) that represents healthcare reform finally makes it to the floors of the House and Senate, most assume it will not include a public option. Progressives (there are some left) have voiced their displeasure with this possibility, with many stating that they will not vote on such a bill. Attaching Kennedy’s name to the bill will then put progressives in the unenviable position of having to vote against a piece of legislation with a title like “The Kennedy Healthcare Reform Act”.

Voting with a conscience, instead of with an eye on reelection and superficiality will certainly have consequences. The media will harp on the name and how unconscionable it is to disrespect the legacy of Kennedy by voting against a bill with his name attached to it; they will pat little attention to the reasons why a Representative or Senator might engage in such a dangerous political act. It will be difficult for these elected officials to explain such a move to their constituents, the vast majority of whom get their news from said asinine sources and have no real understanding of what is and isn’t in the legislation, to say nothing of their ignorance of Kennedy and his beliefs. And here is the bridge between this point and the first motive I spoke about.

Much larger than this individual issue is the issue of the American public’s lack of understanding of history and social policy. I’m not suggesting that these are the only areas where we are an ignorant nation, but they are particularly troubling, and particularly relevant to this discussion.

Whether you like Ted Kennedy or not, and whether you favor a publicly funded health insurance system is not important in this context. What is important is that you at least understand and acknowledge that Ted Kennedy believed in and fought for the creation of a healthcare system that would provide healthcare to all. He believed in universal care, plain and simple. He didn’t fight to lower the costs and increase access a little bit. He believed that all people should be treated the same when it comes to quality of medical care. Your income (or inheritance) should not afford you better care. He understood that not all enterprises should be for-profit, and he named healthcare as one.

Unfortunately we live in a world where the government is seen as evil. Anything government-run is seen as evidence of a turn towards socialism, and socialism is constructed as a system akin to a totalitarian dictatorship. These overly simplistic representations of complex ideologies serve as a means to perpetuate a capitalist system that has lead us down a road of widening disparity, while simultaneously dumbing us down. Ask Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Malkin, and the rest just how much Marx they’ve read. Then ask yourself. Now tell me how qualified you are to name any system or policy as socialist, let alone connect a connotation to it.

We have to own up to the fact that we have become a dumb, fat, and lazy culture. The internet has provided us with the means for virtually unlimited discovery. But instead of being more informed of the nuances of policy or delving into examinations and critiques of the social conditions we live in, we want more news on the Bachelor and Jon & Kate. It’s pathetic; but it’s not nearly as pathetic as naming healthcare reform without a public mandate (fuck that option shit) after Ted Kennedy would be.

And spare me with the Kennedy saw Obama as the savior, and if this is Obama’s plan Kennedy would be cool with it talk. Kennedy supported Obama because the only real lefty with a remote possibility of getting the nomination (John Edwards) was quickly jettisoned from the conversation of realistic candidates. Two candidates for one party’s nomination was already too much for the media to handle. Throw in a third candidate who was taking about issues the others weren’t – like poverty and racism – and the collective talking heads would combust. So Kennedy backed Obama, in large part because his healthcare plan looked more like Edwards’ than Hillary’s did.

But soon after being elected Obama showed himself for who he is, who his record shows him to be – a good, honest, often well-intentioned person who is a capitalist at the trough just like virtually everyone else on The Hill. He believes insurance should be a for-profit enterprise. Saying otherwise might get us somewhere, but he’d have to believe it first.

I’m not the biggest Ted Kennedy fan in the world. I think he did some wonderful things as a legislator, and I think he did some not-so-wonderful things too – No Child Left Behind comes to mind when I think of the latter. But I’m knowledgeable enough about what he stood for, what he believed in, and what he fought for, to know that any healthcare reform that continues to perpetuate the existing system of a few people getting rich at the expense of the poor health of the many is not something he would champion. I’m not glad he died, but I am glad he didn’t have to live to see this.

Lindsey Graham's Shocking Defense of Choice

2009-07-17T10:52:00.007-04:00

Was Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) using yesterday's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as an opportunity to announce to the world that he has changed his mind on the issue of reproductive rights? Is the noted and outspoken anti-choice zealot now pro-choice? Check out this quote from yesterday:

Here's what I will say about you. I don't know how you're going to come out on [a second amendment case]. Because I think fundamentally, Judge, you're able, after all these years of being a judge, to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself, to allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you but for the group, they're necessary. That is my hope for you. That's what makes you to me more acceptable as a judge and not an activist because an activist would be a judge who would be chomping at the bit to use this wonderful opportunity to change America through the Supreme Court by taking their view of life and imposing it on the rest of us.

As you can tell by the brackets used to refer to the context in which he was speaking, Graham's statement was not made in reference to the issue of a woman's right to choose. No, it was made in reference to an issue Graham (and Hatch, Kyl, Cornyn, Corburn, and the rest of the oppressed white guy gang) find far more important - the right to own a gun.

Political and social issues should be examined individually; no individual issue is the same as any other, and it is far too easy to make false analogies. Similarly, the rationale we all use to come to conclusions on where we stand on individual issues is not always the same. Sometimes the rationale we use to explain our position on one issue seems to contradict the rationale we use for another.

But the philosophical rationale Graham states is a somewhat transitive one. Essentially he is advocating for the need to recognize the fact that belonging to any group necessitates embracing the notion that individuals within the group should be allowed to make choices that you may find to be problematic, perhaps even antithetical to your own sense of morality. This is particularly the case when it comes to reproductive rights, where so many on the anti-choice side base their position on theological beliefs and/or a belief in when human life begins. Neither of these are provable or universally held.

The ideology Graham articulates is exactly what the pro-choice movement is all about, and it is why the anti-choice folks' use of the term pro-abortion to describe those who are pro-choice couldn't be more inappropriate.

The clip was difficult to find, and the only place I could find it was on C-SPAN's website. I embedded the clip below, and you can also link to the clip here.

The quote above comes from around the 46:55 mark. Enjoy.

Compromise on Public Option is Not Acceptable

2009-07-16T11:53:00.004-04:00

Since June we've known that there are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) that plan to vote against any healthcare legislation that does not provide for a robust public option. Yesterday we finally saw the list of the 50 members of the House who plan to hold firm to their belief that a Democrat in the White House and 60 in the Senate is the right time to advance legislation that actually meets the needs of the 47 million Americans without healthcare. The list may be seen here. Follow the link and you will also see a list of an additional 11 members who are apparently leaning towards voting against a plan without a robust public option.

Firedoglake has been instrumental in putting pressure on the members of the CPC, as well as reporting on the issue. They have a great tool on their site that provides the names and contact info of all the CPC members and where they stand on the issue. Please contact these folks and urge them to hold firm.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the argument is that the federal government can't do anything right, why is the right so worried about private insurance companies' inability to compete with a government program? If the ideology is all about competition, and the government can provide better and cheaper services, why is that a bad thing?

I know that part of the answer is that it is unfair for the federal government to use its size and accompanying power to essentially create a monopoly that makes it unfair and virtually impossible for private businesses to compete. In fact, we have anti-trust laws that prohibit such actions. But if we engage in a meaningful and critical discussion about this particular issue, and don't simply accept this rationale on face-value, we then must ask if healthcare is just like every other commodity and/or service, or if it is inherently different?

To equate healhcare with any other enterprise (and that is unfortunately what it has become) is to dehumanize us all, particularly low-income folks and people of color who are disproportionately impacted by the disparities in access to and quality of care. We must stop prioritizing the GNP, GDP, and shareholders' needs over the fundamental right all people in every other indutrialized nation currently have to healthcare. Let's join the ranks already.

And it's enough already with the government bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor bullshit defense of for-profit insurance. The imagery of people dying in emergency waiting rooms and while they wait for approval for a necessary procedure is real, it's just misplaced. It's happening now as insurance companies look for ways to beef up their bottom lines, no matter the human costs. These costs, after all, are just another number on a ledger. Who thinks the current system that places a profit-driven technocrat between you and your doctor is working well? Find a doctor or a person who is not wealthy that does and get back to me.

The time for compromise, appeasement, and comforting rhetoric is over. The time to pass sweeping changes to healthcare is now. We all have a part to play. Now, let's play it. It is vital that we contact the elected officials who have the power to force an end to this conciliatory bullshit and make the Congress and the President act in a significant way. There are already signs of waffling, so let's get to it. If we don't act now, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Legacy Lost in the Shuffle

2009-07-13T14:33:00.000-04:00

Been wrestling with the need to write about the passing of Robert McNamara. I just watched an episode of Charlie Rose where he replayed interviews with McNamara from episodes in 1995 and 2003. The 2003 episode was an interview with McNamara and Errol Morris. Morris is the noted documentarian who made The Fog of War, the Oscar-winning film about McNamara's life and career. I highly recommend viewing the The Fog of War, and you can see parts of the Rose interviews here:

With that said, here are some thoughts.

It's been seven days since the passing of Robert McNamara. He died Monday, July 6 at the age of 93. I know it's a recurring theme in my blog entries, but it must be noted that the media coverage of his death, and more importantly what he did during his life, has been embarrassingly scant.

McNamara served as Defense Secretary for JFK & LBJ, and is known as one of the primary architects of the Vietnam War, as well as the US bombings in Laos and Cambodia. He will forever be remembered (for those who care to give a shit about history that isn't about which celebrities are fucking each other) as being part of the brain-trust that contributed to the death of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and Americans.

But it is the role he played in that circle, as a voice clamoring for death and war, for the eradication of the evils of Communism across the globe, that desperately needs attention. His legacy is that of a technocrat, far removed from the brutality and realities of war, who advanced and helped create the modern industrial military complex.

It is imperative, particularly now as we are mired in two wars (regardless of when troops pull out of city limits, we're still engaged in war) that were planned, justified, and now are being executed (in terms of the plans and accompanying PR spin) by individuals (almost exclusively white men) who built careers much like McNamara's.

McNamara is important not just because of what he did, though that certainly is important in its own right. But if we take a broader look, it is possible to view the significance of his decisions and deeds as being overshadowed by the manner by and through which he institutionalized roles and careers like his and the modern-day neocon hawks and neoliberal cheerleaders of globalization that now orchestrate, dictate, and articulate our foreign policies and the perspectives they normalize.

As someone whose just getting into this whole blog writing genre, I think it's better to collect and refer you to the writings of others who have already articulated much of what needs to be said. These things need to not only be said, but they need to be thought about, remembered, and more importantly taught.

We need to speak up about the time in our history that McNamara influenced so profoundly in an effort to illustrate how what we normalize and take for granted today related to the professionalization of careers predicated on the existence of bad guys and evil-doers, death, destruction, and the annihilation of peoples with divergent viewpoints (particularly those in poor and brown/black populated nations) is a construction that happened in a particular moment. It is not normal or natural; it has only been made to seem that way.

With that, I urge you to read the following:

Great piece by Michael Lind on Salon.com on the bipartisanship of blaming the Vietnam War on McNamara.

Joseph Galloway's commentary on taking pleasure in reading McNamara's obit.

Andrew Lam arguing that McNamara's mea culpa and purported hindsight still failed to grasp the gravity of his role in Vietnam.

Sam Smith of the Huffington Post interviews Errol Morris on his thoughts of the life of Robert McNamara.

The obit that the AP, Huff Post, and others ran.

Short piece by Joseph Nye on redemption and reflection, both of self and others.

Joe Costello offers an interesting lens through which to view McNamara by comparing and contrasting his life, legacy, and the meanings they were built on and helped build to those of Hunter S. Thompson.

And finally, I'll leave you with a weird video clip and accompanying text of McNamara reading reading Dylan Thomas' The Hand that Signed the Paper. This was a scene from the previously mentioned Errol Morris that was deleted and was not included in the final cut of the film. Self-awareness escapes us all, and all we can hope is a degree is knowledge about ourselves. Perhaps more dangerous than not engaging in this pursuit that we know will never come to an end and will only produce minimum results is the belief that you are more in touch with who you are than in fact is the case. This is all comes to life here:

Tell Me Again How Electing Obama Changed Everything

2009-07-09T13:27:00.004-04:00

The instant analysis/commentary nature of the internet makes me feel like I’m a bit late on this; but I suppose better late than never. And I think this incident is important, not only as an individual example of racism, but as a representation of the many untold incidents like it that happen across the country everyday.

Please note that a significant portion of this entry has been cut and pasted from two stories on the Philadelphia-area NBC affiliate's website. You may view those stories here and here.

Earlier this week 65 Black children from Creative Steps Day Camp in Philadelphia were kicked out of the private Valley Swim Club.

Creative Steps paid The Valley Swim Club more than $1900 for one day of swimming a week, but after the first day, the money was quickly refunded and the campers were told not to return.

"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.

"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

The next day the club told the camp director that the camp's membership was being suspended and their money would be refunded.    

"I said, 'The parents don't want the refund. They want a place for their children to swim,'" camp director Aetha Wright said.   

Campers remain unsure why they're no longer welcome.   

"They just kicked us out. And we were about to go. Had our swim things and everything," said camper Simer Burwell.   

The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded.    

"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

The situation left the camp and the campers facing the possibility of not having a place to swim for the rest of the summer. So the staff at Girard College, a private Philadelphia boarding school for children who live in low-income and single parent homes, stepped in and offered their pool.

"We had to help," said Girard College director of Admissions Tamara Leclair. "Every child deserves an incredible summer camp experience."

The school already serves 500 campers of its own, but felt they could squeeze in 65 more – especially since the pool is vacant on the day the Creative Steps had originally planned to swim at Valley Swim Club.

"I'm so excited," camp director Alethea Wright exclaimed. There are still a few logistical nuisances -- like insurance -- the organizations have to work out, but it seems the campers will not stay dry for long.

And to sweeten the deal, the owners of Gumdrops & Sprinkles treated the kids to a free day of candy and ice cream making.

The banning has caused so much controversy that U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) plans to launch an investigation into the discrimination claim.

"The allegations against the swim club as they are reported are extremely disturbing," Specter said in a statement. "I am reaching out to the parties involved to ascertain the facts. Racial discrimination has no place in America today."

The cutting and pasting segment of this entry ends here.

Unfortunately, I can't say that this incident surprises me. It disgusts and angers me, but it doesn't surprise me. In addition to anger and disgust, I'm left with the following feelings and questions:

1. Why, in the little national media attention that this story has received (an issue unto itself), is anyone making the point that this is somehow more surprising because it happened in the Northeast and not the South? Ever been to Philly? Or Boston? Or any other city in the NE? See much celebration of diversity? These cities are as racist and segregated as they come. I'm tired of the South being portrayed as more racist than other parts of the country. It may play out differently, but the end result is pretty similar. See this piece for more on this issue.

2. How many more incidents like this do we need to silent the voices who claim racism is no longer an issue in America? Oh, and by the way, the head of the club that kicked these kids out is a liberal Obama supporter and head of the Philly area Peace Action group.

3. Where are the civil rights activists from the right who were so concerned about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court based on the fact that they claimed she is a racist? I'm waiting for Newt, Buchanan, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and the rest of their little conservatives concerned about racism group to start screaming. Still waiting....

One Soldier's Perspective, Part 3

2009-07-08T13:57:00.006-04:00

Presenting part 3 in a series of writings from a USAF Veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can read part 1 here and part 2 here.

One of my most memorable missions into Kandahar was actually quite uneventful. The flight in was uneventful, the flight out was uneventful. We were on a detainee transport mission. I had never been a part of this type of mission before this night. The theater commander required certain training for the air crew and it is an extremely dangerous mission. I was very interested and almost excited. As an aircrew member, I am more accustomed to dealing with the enemy with a few jerks of a yoke and some counter measures. I was now going to meet the enemy up close.

While we were on the ground in Kandahar, I went to the back of the aircraft as we were loading the detainees. I asked one of the prison guards if I could see one of the detainees. He pulled one aside and took off his mask. What I saw was both intriguing and scary at the same time. I saw in the eyes of this detainee a wanton disregard for my human form. I felt if he was unshackled, he would have tried to kill me on the spot. I felt like if he could gain the whereabouts of my family, he would probably have made a run at ending their lives as well. This event is something I have spent a good bit of time thinking about since.

I have thought about the fact that he had been captured, that he was shackled in the back of a United States aircraft. His future was unknown. I suppose these factors contributed to this detainee’s hostile appearance, but it was something more than the immediate surroundings. This man had a deep seeded hatred for the man standing before him (ME!). I am amazed to this day that this man had such conviction that he would die for his beliefs. I have realized over time that he and I had similarities. I wore the uniform of an Air Force officer and pilot. I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. I take that seriously, as did this man. He took an oath to protect and defend his way of life.

This event took place in the back of an aircraft, with the engines running, in the middle of a cold night in Afghanistan. The encounter lasted only 30 seconds or so. This event had a profound affect on my life. I remember this man as someone who had no respect for my life. Yet I somehow have respect for him and his convictions in what he believes, but I do not believe in this man’s way of life. Such is the dichotomy of war.

R.J. Strapper
US Air Force Academy, Class of 1997
317th Airlift Group, 40th Airlift Squadron, Air Mobility Command. We flew the mighty C-130H.

Thinking About the 4th of July

2009-07-05T11:41:00.006-04:00

Celebrating and commemorating the 4th of July has become a dumbed-down day full of nationalism, jingoism, a whitewashing of history, and a celebration of consumption. In other words, it is quintessentially American.

While there are many who write about reflecting back on the founding of the nation with a critical and honest perspective, perhaps none do it better than noted writer, activist, and educator Tim Wise. It is with that said that I offer Tim's latest essay, Of Fireworks and False Memories: Reflections on History, Race and Nation as a counter to all the blathering, inane bullshit that filled the airwaves and cyberspace the last several days. Enjoy.

Of Fireworks and False Memories:

Reflections on History, Race and Nation

By Tim Wise

July 4/5, 2009

"...the past is all that makes the present coherent, and further...the past will remain horrible for exactly as long as we refuse to assess it honestly." (James Baldwin, 1952)

I have this fantasy, the indulgence of which I resist, due in part to the impracticality of it, but also, and mostly out of a general distaste for inviting potential violence upon my person. It only comes to mind once a year really, on this day in fact, as cities and towns across the United States gear up for their respective July 4th celebrations, replete with fireworks, hot dogs, and lots of red, white and blue banners, flags and wardrobe accessories ubiquitously assaulting the visual landscape from sea to shining sea.

In the fantasy, it's incredibly hot out, even as the daytime sun recedes, giving way to the darkening skies that will soon serve as the canvas for a colorful explosion of incendiary art: the end product of two unstoppable forces--American self-love, and Chinese manufacturing--brought together in an audacious display of grandiosity, not unlike, say, Siegfried and Roy, or at least Peaches and Herb.

As Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" blares from the back of a sound system loaded onto a truck, and the yearly Independence Day parade begins, I bide my time. Then, just as the first procession of Boy Scouts passes by, I turn to the man standing next to me, the one with the big "God Bless the USA" button on his hat, and say:

"Why can't you just get over it? I mean, why do you people insist on living in the past? That whole 'breaking away from the British thing' was like more than 200 years ago for God's sakes. Isn't it time to move on?"

In the fantasy, the man's head explodes, bloodless but powerfully and very, very final, at which point I move on to the next reveler, knowing that I only have so much time in which to put an end to this special brand of sanctimony by thought-murdering the assembled. After all, once the big sky-booms begin, no one will be able to hear me.

Truth is, I'm not a violent person. But if I thought this would work, I just might try it. This is, of course, exactly the kind of thing that whites (especially white conservatives) say whenever the subject of racism is raised, and always, if it is linked to the brutal national legacy of enslavement, Indian genocide and imperialistic land grabs. As in, "Oh, that was a long time ago, get over it," or "Stop living in the past," or as one intrepid soul explained to me last week in an e-mail, "Shit happens." That an otherwise literate, and by his own claims, well-informed individual would think nothing of turning hundreds of years of oppression--during which millions perished as a result of white supremacy--into the equivalent of a bumper sticker, should be more than enough to dampen the enthusiasm with which we celebrate our nation at this time of year. At least, it would be if the moral calibration of the people of said place played any role whatsoever in our understanding of the national self. Naturally though, it doesn't.

Shit happens. In other words, the past is the past, and we shouldn't dwell on it. Unless of course we should and indeed insist on doing so, as with the above-referenced July 4th spectacle, which is, to put it mildly, about some old shit. Or as many used to do with their cries of "Remember the Alamo," or "Remember Pearl Harbor," both of which took as their jumping off point the rather obvious notion that the past does matter and should be remembered, but which underlying logic apparently vanishes like fog before noon when applied to those historical moments we'd rather forget. Not because they are any less historical, but merely because they are considerably less convenient.

Truth is, we love living in the past when it venerates us. When it elevates us. When it places us upon the pedestal we have grown accustomed to seeing as our national birthright, as something to which we are entitled, as if placed there by the very hand of God Almighty, who of course speaks only English, lives in the suburbs, and drives a Hummer. If the past allows us to reside in an idealized, albeit mythical place, from which we can look down upon the rest of humanity as besotted, benighted inferiors, who are no doubt jealous of our greatness and our freedoms (and so that, of course is why they hate us and why some attack us), then the past is the perfect companion: an old friend, or lover, or at least a well-worn and reassuring shoe. If, on the other hand, some among us insist that the past is more than that--if we point out that the past is also one of brutality, and that this brutality, especially as regards race, has mightily skewed the distribution of wealth and opportunity in our nation--then the past becomes a trifle, a pimple on the ass of now, an unwelcome reminder that although the emperor may wear clothes, the clothes he wears betray a shape he had rather hoped to conceal. No no, the past, in those cases, is to be forgotten. Or if not forgotten, at least it is to carry no weight in the halls of power, such as the Supreme Court, which has reminded us repeatedly, and most recently this past week, that as regrettable as the history of anti-black racism is in this country (a history in which they themselves have played more than a mere supporting role), there is virtually nothing that can be done to remedy the effects of that history. It is, in the eyes of the court mere "societal discrimination," a bloodless and apparently perpetrator-less crime, mentioned in a dismissively clinical tone, and without regard for possible repair. In other words, shit happens, sayeth Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. So suck it up.

Of course, so as to put a more benign and intellectually appealing gloss upon their position, white folks will often dress it up in the language of compassionate concern. Thus, they insist that dwelling on past injustices, or the present-day effects of those, is unhealthy, whereas dwelling on the supposed glories of the past is perfectly salubrious. Yes, those bad things happened, they might admit in a moment of temporary honesty, but to spend too much time on such matters is to create, or perpetuate an already-created mentality of victimhood among the, well, victims, though we shouldn't think of them as such. And so the right, with this master stroke presents itself as the defenders of black and brown dignity, merely seeking to protect them from the self-imposed straightjacket of victimization, rather than as the charlatans they really are: people who never, in any era gave two shits about the well being of people of color, and who stood in opposition to every single advance towards racial equity in this nation's history, but who now deign to pose as modern day inheritors of the legacy of MLK.

But their hypocrisy in this regard is stunning, or rather, it would be, were one capable of being shocked any longer by the patently dishonest pedantry of such persons as these. After all, it seems beyond obvious that they would never tell the parents of a murdered child to "get over it," or to "move on," nor warn them that their continued recitation of their family tragedy was somehow turning them into carriers of a deadly social pathogen known as victimhood. No indeed; rather, crime victims are able to parlay their victimhood into celebrity status, and market their suffering to the masses, who will then elevate them to the status of experts on the subject of crime, as with John Walsh or Marc Klaas, whose only claim to expertise on crime control policy comes from the fact that their children were viciously murdered. But if this is all it takes to be an expert on crime, then I guess the fact that I once got food poisoning from eating a bad oyster in Tacoma means I'm qualified to weigh in on quality control standards in the nation's fisheries. And no, I am not analogizing murder to food poisoning. For the record, a good childhood friend of mine was murdered exactly 29 years ago today, but this sad truth fails to imbue me with special insights on the particulars of proper crime control, though Nancy Grace would beg to differ I suppose, and although I would, as a result of this fact, reap the never-ending compassion of the very people who inveigh against the adoption of a victim mentality when the victimization is because of race.

Likewise, those who claim to be concerned only about the debilitating effects of a victim mentality never tell Jews to stop dwelling on the Hitlerian holocaust--indeed, historic Jewish victimization is today used to justify virtually any depredation against Palestinians, all in the name of Jewish nationhood, surrounded by cries of "never again"--and they don't say it to Cuban exiles who still can't get over their families' lost financial stake in Batista-era casinos, or to the Kurds who were gassed by Saddam, or, for that matter, even to the religious fanatics who claim to be victimized by the fact that they aren't allowed to recite a decidedly Christian prayer over the intercom in a public school. Oh no: to these there is nothing but sympathy. Their victimhood is recognized, honored and cultivated like soybeans in the post-Dust Bowl midwest. It is ennobled, even as the victimization of peoples of color is disregarded, downplayed, dishonored and turned into a subject of ridicule.

Of course, that the right--and especially its white members--would prove to be hypocrites on the subject of the harms of "victimhood" should hardly surprise. After all, this is a bunch that has, in every era, posing as the arbiters of tradition and defenders of all that is holy and true, played the consummate victim. Even as they sought to conquer the indigenous of the Americas they claimed victim status, notably, whenever those they sought to extirpate opted to fight back, rather than to go gently into that good night. And they claimed to be the victims of witches in Salem, and Papists, and foreign potentates (against whom those seeking to become citizens must still today swear a vow of bitter enmity), and abolitionists, and impoverished immigrants, and Jews, and evolutionists (also known in some quarters as scientists), and communists, and union bosses, and integrationists, and fluoridated water, and the United Nations, and hippies, and secular humanists, and feminists, and more communists, and the New World Order, and now Mexicans, and Mexicans, and Mexicans, and affirmative action, and multiculturalism, and of course big government, and taxes and welfare, and the liberal media, and gay marriage and Muslim terrorists.

The white right loves victims, as long as they are the right kind. In keeping with their great admiration of victimhood status, Glenn Beck inveighs on behalf of such an elevated and salutary identity as this, every time he implores Americans to return to "who we were on September 12th" of 2001. Such an entreaty takes as a given, after all, that we should bask in our victimhood, wallow in it, let it envelop us like a warm blanket, or perhaps an old discarded chrysalis, no longer functional but oh so reassuring about the place whence we come. Yes, if we can just get back to that, Beck assures us, we will recapture the purpose and mission that is ours to claim; we will soar to new heights, on the wings of the wronged, the attacked, the victimized, never allowing ourselves to forget for one minute what happened, nor even to get two days beyond it, always bringing it up, always using it as the excuse for anything and everything we do to anyone else in the world. It will allow us to claim the mantle of victim in perpetuity, until the end of time. And if we waver in our commitment to living as permanent targets of ill-fortune, never fear, perhaps Osama bin Laden will slaughter a few thousand more of ours in a new terrorist attack: something for which one of Beck's TV guests recently hoped, and with which Beck took no umbrage nor uttered even a syllable of indignant protest.

In other words, victimhood, far from being self-defeating, is a status to which the right has long aspired, and a label they have long sought to wear, like a badge of honor on their lapels. They have wanted nothing so much as to be seen as the ultimate victims, of every evil conspiracy ever concocted: to usurp God and nation and mom and apple pie. Their concern is not that blacks and other folks of color, by remembering history, will somehow chain themselves to a crippling narrative of victimization, but quite the opposite: that by remembering history, they will perpetuate the recognition of who did the victimizing. It is not victimhood they mind, but an honest appraisal of their own implication in the injury.

Which is no doubt why Beck, on this very day--Independence Day--announced on his radio show that he "hates the last one hundred years or so of American history." For it is that century in which the prerogatives of his kind of people (and the kind of people favored by the right generally) began to be effectively challenged. That was the century in which women got the right to vote, formal apartheid was dismantled, very much against the will of conservatives, child labor was outlawed, and workers received at least some basic protections from exploitative bosses. And so it is that one hundred years that has made a victim out of Glenn Beck and others like him. They now pose as the victims of a new America they can't even recognize, and can't abide. They claim to love the country, but actually only love the Leave It To Beaver version of it, which of course was always a fantasy, indulged by those whites too wrapped up in their racial narcissism to recognize how fundamentally insane was their rendering of the national truth.

This is why white folks suffered such apoplexy at the words of Jeremiah Wright, back in the spring of 2008: not because they had evidence to contradict what he said about U.S. militarism, the murdering of innocent civilians by the American empire, or about the regular and repeated medical experimentation done on black folks throughout the years--all of which has been amply documented by whiter and far less "radical" persons than he--but because his words forced a comeuppance with truth, for which they were none prepared. We had preferred the sanitized lie, and were incredulous that some among us might not be willing to play the game as we had played it for so many years.

Sadly, our national willingness to confront hard truths--or more to the point our unwillingness to do so--is a contagion, the likes of which has clearly infected the President, as evidenced by his July 4th message to the nation today, a copy of which arrived in my e-mail inbox as I was writing this, in fact. In it, President Obama--a man who surely knows better but who, having traded honesty for political viability, now finds himself tethered to patriotic blather as a condition of his public image--begins by insisting that on this day we should remember the "courageous group of patriots" who "pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the proposition that all of us were created equal." Of course, as I'm sure the President learned at Columbia (or for that matter in prep school in Hawaii), most of them believed in no such thing. For many of the revolutionaries, indeed most, freedom and liberty were to be the preserve of white men only. And so, while whites like my own sixth-degree great grandfather received 10,000 acres of land for his service in the war, the 5000 blacks who served every bit as valiantly as he received no such prize. Indeed, slaves who fought rarely even obtained their freedom as thanks for their service. That is the truth of the independence we celebrate today: namely that it would remain a lie, even in theory, for virtually all non-white folks for another century, and in practice, for nearly two.

In other words, whereas Glenn Beck sees fit to condemn the last one hundred years of American history, it is only this century--and especially the last half of it, what with its steps forward, however incomplete, towards racial equity--that true lovers of liberty can possibly endorse and celebrate. The rest is mostly a menagerie of oppression, broken promises and outright lies: fraud masquerading as fact, tyranny posing as freedom, overt white supremacy and racial fascism smiling through the toothy grin of half-assed Constitutional guarantees that weren't worth the parchment upon which they were written.

And so as the fireworks pop outside my window, and the celebrants of our national glory retreat to their homes, filled with the warm fuzzy feeling that only raw and naked hubris can provide, may the rest of us--the non-celebrants, who value truth more so than comfort--pledge to continue troubling their sleep, disturbing their dreams, and haunting their patriotic consciousness well into the future: a future which, in the absence of an honest appraisal of where we are and where we've been, will be little more hopeful than the past from which we've only recently begun to emerge.

And if their heads explode, well, all the better.

Tim Wise is the author of four books, most recently, Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama (City Lights, 2009).

Many of his essays may be found online at www.timwise.org

Israel's Human Rights Violations in the 2009 Gaza Conflict

2009-07-03T13:38:00.006-04:00

I can't wait to see how my fellow American Jews justify and spin this one.

Late Thursday Amnesty International released the first comprehensive report on the Israeli invasion of Gaza earlier this year. The report, titled Operation "Cast Lead": 22 Days of Death and Destruction, claims that both Israel and Hamas (as well as other armed Palestinian paramilitary groups) engaged in practices that violated international laws governing wars and conflicts, as well as blatant disregard for human rights.

Israeli forces killed hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians and destroyed thousands of homes in Gaza in attacks which breached the laws of war.

Amnesty cites several violations of international law committed by the Israelis, including, but not limited to, the following: engaging in indiscriminate attacks using white phosphorous and flechettes (tiny lethal metal darts encased in tank shells), using civilians (including children) as human shields, hindering access to medical care, engaging in firefights that placed medical personnel in direct danger, denying humanitarian aid workers access to the wounded and displaced, and destroying homes and public buildings without justification and/or warning.

It should come as no surprise that Amnesty found Hamas and the other Palestinian armed paramilitary groups guilty of human rights violations. Hamas is a terrorist organization; but Israel is a nation-state that the US claims as a close ally, often citing the Israeli government as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Among the specific Israeli violations Amnesty lists, the following may be the most disturbing:

During Operation “Cast Lead” Israeli forces repeatedly took over Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip forcing families to stay in a ground-floor room while they used the rest of their house as a military base and sniper position – effectively using the families, both adults and children, as “human shields” and putting them at risk. While soldiers wore protective body armour and helmets and shielded themselves behind sandbags as they fired from the houses, the Palestinian inhabitants of the houses had no such protection.

According to testimonies, in several cases Israeli forces also forced unarmed Palestinian civilian males (mostly adults but in two cases also children) to serve as “human shields”, including making them walk in front of armed soldiers; go into buildings to check for booby traps or gunmen; and inspect suspicious objects for explosives. These practices are not new. Numerous such cases have been documented in recent years and the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that such practices contradict international law and prohibited them in October 2005.

These examples say nothing of the destruction of schools and other public buildings. The usual justification for destroying such structures is that the Palestinians are evil people who hole up in these buildings, essentially using the civilians inside as human shields. Pot, meet kettle.

The American press has essentially ignored the story. The New York Times buried the story in its US edition, while giving it a somewhat more prominent spot in its g l o b a l e d i t i o n. A l t e r n e t, T h e H u f f i n g t o n P o s t, and The Raw Story all have stories about the report, though The Huff Post is not providing nearly as prominent a position on their site as this story merits.

There is nothing about Amnesty's report on the websites of America's leading pro-Israel groups. The website for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a haven for hawkish neo-cons and their ilk and self-described as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby", states that their offices are closed today in observance of July 4. There is no such disclaimer on the American Jewish Committee's site (AJC).

I know that many simple-minded folks blindly loyal to Israel will not only justify these actions by the Israeli military, but will also label my words as those of a self-hating Jew. This simple and mindless approach to issues involving human rights does nothing to advance the cause of Israel.

Being an ally, much like being a friend, should be about being critical when necessary; it should not be akin to being a cheerleader. This mindset is dangerous and analogous to that used to justify the US's torture of prisoners. It's time for Jews and others who consider themselves friends and advocates of Israel (I consider myself such a person) to engage in an honest and substantive conversation over human rights. The only way to justify the acts described in this report is to view Palestinians as less than human. Unfortunately, I think this is an apt description of many American Jews' thoughts and feelings about Palestinians.

Healthcare and the right: Having cake, eating it, and vomiting it all over yourself

2009-07-02T09:20:00.008-04:00

This whole healthcare debate has me confused. I'm clear on the following:

a. approximately 46 million Americans are without health insurance.

b. we all pay for the care these folks receive - both in terms of financial costs and the costs to our collective morality we incur by valuing individuals' lives and health based on income.

c. everyone deserves healthcare and we are the ONLY developed/industrialized (insert any other Western, imperial, colonial moniker that privileges wealth over poverty in a ubiquitous way) nation that does not simply provide healthcare to all.

What I'm confused about is the Republicans' opposition to a public option. The key word here is option. While I'm all for a single-payer system that covers everyone and removes the for-profit insurance companies from the equation, I also know that stating such makes me a pinko Commie bastard. This idea of simply providing for all is soooo European and Socialist; it just won't happen any time soon in a country that bows at the altar of business, wealth, and profits. But what confuses me is the right's seemingly contradictory views on the matter.

If, as the right believes, private businesses will always come up with a better, more efficient model that the government, what's the harm in a public option? If the private options will always be better, why not let the federal government offer a plan? The diparity in the quality and costs of the two would only serve to prove the right's point that the private sector always knows best. This is, after all, the line of argument the right uses in advancing their case against public schooling.

In railing against public schools the right uses an argument that goes something like this: The government has a monopoly on the provision of education. This lack of competition fosters an environment of complacency, mediocrity, and even poor quality. If we just opened up schools to competition like we do with other consumer products we would instantly see an increase in the quality of education American kids receive. In the right's mind this is all based on the facts that:

a. Education is just a commodity like socks and video games.

b. Those who go into education do not inherently care about their students and the quality of education they receive. They need incentives, and in our culture competition is the king of incentives.

So if this is the rationale for promoting an agenda that seeks to dismantle the monopoly on education, why do these things not apply to healthcare, which is unfortunately also seen merely as a commodity?

It seems that once again the right seeks to have it both ways. Is sex the only area where the right sees both ways as a bad thing? They want to extol the virtues of the private sector, but they don't want to engage in a competition that would render a verdict based on real people making real choices - the extent to which any of us make choices, but that's a whole other story.

Come to think of it, this situation is an example not of the right wanting to have it both ways, but instead wanting something even more - something like a three-way. Given the recent and seemingly never-ending examples of Republicans having a conservative mind and a liberal penis (thanks Jon Stewart), I guess this actually makes perfect sense. Never mind, I'm straight. I mean clear.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Governor Mark Sanford's Affair

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

One Soldier's Perspective, Part 2

2009-07-02T09:11:00.004-04:00

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

When I was a Smack (freshman) at the Air Force Academy, we had an entire book of knowledge that we were required to commit to memory. Inside this book were quotes from famous generals, admirals and other people of consequence from history. After 16 years, this is one of the quotes that I can still remember word for word. Of course the Air Force was using this quote to help train the young and influential Smacks, to make them understand what their future role would be in the Air Force.

I think about this quote almost every day. Not always in a serious note and not always with war as my reference. I think about this quote when someone asks me why I joined the military and why I served my country. I felt called to do so. What do you feel called to do?

When I think about the first time my unit came back from the Middle East, I think of this quote. I think of all the people in our country, no matter their political course, supporting each other and helping us cope with a tremendous tragedy. All of my Airlift Groups aircraft and personnel made it home from the Middle East in the middle of March of 2002. When we landed our spectacular formation taxied onto the tarmac, I could not believe the sight. Thousands of people, Fox News, CNN and the big three all had cameras and crews. It was an amazing event. I felt pride; I felt like the person that Mr. Mills wrote about.

Do you have to go to war to find your reflection in this quote? No, there are other wars to fight in our country. There are more than I can name. Care about something, fight for that cause. Make this country a better place. It is not only our right, but our responsibility. It is okay to not agree with others that are trying to make our country better. They have the same passion as you. Work towards the common goal: a better United States. Serve your country.

R.J. Strapper
US Air Force Academy, Class of 1997
317th Airlift Group, 40th Airlift Squadron, Air Mobility Command. We flew the mighty C-130H.

See Part 1 here

Misplaced Demands for Justice

2009-07-01T14:11:00.007-04:00

It's hard to find any media coverage of the Bernie Madoff story that isn't drenched in a blood-thirsty for revenge tone. As everyone knows by now, Madoff received 150 years in prison for the crime of stealing money from affluent folks. And the whole world seems to be celebrating his sentence.

I'm not excusing what Madoff did, nor do I think the severity of his crimes is mediated by the fact that he stole from the rich. Madoff was no Robin Hood. He stole from the rich to give to the richer, namely himslef. What does bother me is the public's and media's celebration of his sentence.

I won't claim to have scoured the internet for stories offering a contrarian perspective; I could have looked longer and found more, but after spending the amount of time I did spend I became sick. I still can't get over the fact that everyone, those on the right, left, and in the middle, seem to think this matters. Madoff is being punished, but nobody is getting their money back and the dude is gonna die in prison. Why is this cause for celebration?

The only story I could find that offered anything resembling a critical perspective that goes against the prevailing punditry is this story on Alternet. Alternet is always good for offering an alternative.

This short piece simply asks us to consider why we celebrate the punishment of those who cheat the rich while we accept the fact that the poor get cheated and lied to on a daily basis and their swindlers never seem to receive any sort of punishment. Perhaps it is simple and this is just one more example of our glorification of wealth and the wealthy and our apathy towards the poor.

What to Make of Bruno

2009-06-30T14:44:00.006-04:00

Lost in the sea of hype for the new Sacha Baron Cohen film, Bruno, is the question of the roles and responsibilities of the satirist who tackles controversial and taboo subject matter in an effort to critically examine and change public perception. What if the satirist isn't taken as such? What if the public isn't in on the joke? What if the intentions and consequences are in opposition?

These questions have received some media attention, but not nearly enough. I haven’t seen the film yet, so clearly I can’t comment on specifics from the movie. But I am a fan of Da Ali G Show and know the Bruno character well. I have also seen Cohen in several media appearances designed to promote the film.

Bruno is a mock documentary, much in the same style as Cohen’s previous film, Borat. The premise of the film is that Bruno is an Austrian fashion reporter who loses his job in Austria and comes to the US in search of fame. He seeks the elusive and desirable job of celebrity. The off-the-charts stereotypes Bruno embodies includes wearing sheer or mesh shirts and talking with a pronounced lisp.

The film covers Bruno’s encounters with Americans, ranging from the man-on-the-street genre of encounters to arranged meetings with prominent figures like US Representative (R) and former Presidential candidate Ron Paul. The folks in the film all believe Bruno is real, and hijinks ensue.

Given the current political and social climate, it’s no surprise that even though the issues associated with the dangers of satirizing homophobia when many won’t take it as satire aren’t getting much in the way of mainstream media attention, they are being addressed by prominent GLBT organizations and activists.

In response to one scene that shows Bruno appearing to have sex with a man in a bathtub while his adopted baby sits close by, Rashad Robinson, Senior Director of Media Programs for The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) said:

That wasn't really unmasking homophobia, and especially in a country where same-sex couples can still be denied the ability to adopt children that they've raised since birth. Trivializing gay families isn't a joke.

Commenting on another sequence from the film, Robinson states:

In one extended series of sequences, Bruno adopts a baby from Africa, giving Baron Cohen an opportunity to take aim at those celebrity parents who seem to treat their children like fashion accessories. What follows, though, shifts the film from smart social satire to something else entirely - a parade of over-the-top stereotypes that, whatever their intent, play to and could affirm troubling attitudes about gay people.

Bruno appears as a guest on a local TV talk show with the baby in tow. Then, following racially insensitive comments by Bruno in the presence of the largely African American audience, that audience is shown photos of what appears to be Bruno in a hot tub having sex with men inches away from the child. Horrified and outraged, the talk-show audience turns on Bruno.

What's disquieting about this scene - and others in the film - is that it doesn't call attention to or unmask cultural homophobia...in a country where gay and lesbian parents can still be denied the ability in some states to adopt the children they have raised since birth - and where those children can even be taken away from the only parents they've ever known - the idea of trivializing gay families, making them the butt of a series of crude jokes, and reinforcing pernicious stereotypes about gay men and children didn't feel funny. It felt dangerous.

Robinson adds:

We do feel the intentions of the filmmakers are in the right place -- satire of this form can unmask homophobia -- but at the same time it can heighten people's discomfort with our community.

With that in mind, GLAAD asked in vain for Universal Pictures, the studio behind Bruno, to add a message from Cohen addressing the importance of gay rights and tolerance.

Universal says in a statement it believes most moviegoers will understand the film's positive intentions: "Bruno uses provocative comedy to powerfully shed light on the absurdity of many kinds of intolerance and ignorance, including homophobia," the studio said.

And while it may come as a surprise to those who think of GLBT folks as a monolithic, single-minded group, there are those who see things differently. Brad Luna, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign offers this:

Bigotry and homophobia still today get cloaked in many different nuanced ways, so a movie like this has the potential to let everyone in on the joke and to really change the way homophobia is viewed.

HRC is not alone in their disapproval of what many see as GLAAD's attempt to dictate to others what to think of Bruno. Queerty sees his character as a possibly strong weapon in the fight against homophobia and heterosexism.

Yes, he plays a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion reporter, but heterosexual Sacha Baron Cohen's character Bruno is, for all intents and purposes, a comedic exercise in exploring gay stereotypes and going on a witch hunt for homophobes — both concepts that, on their face, we're perfectly fine with...

Finally, The Human Rights Campaign chimes in with this:

If the context and intent behind this kind of particular humor is about exposing and making fun of homophobia to show the ridiculousness of it, that is one thing. What is undeniable though is the impact on the audience is going to vary. Although we view the movie for what it is, a satirical portrayal of stereotyping, we shouldn’t lose sight of the seriousness of this issue. The #1 epithet used on schoolyards across the country remains anti-gay slurs. In the last few months, we have had to continually witness the heartbreaking suicides of young boys who were taunted and bullied using anti-gay epithets. It continues to remain a serious problem in this country. As Sacha Baren Cohen and Universal Pictures prepare for the upcoming release of Bruno, they have a responsibility to make sure that the viewing public understands this character is done as satire to poke fun at stereotyping. Otherwise, they run the risk of 16 yr old high school boys across the country feeling empowered to bully schoolmates. And tragically we already know what the consequences of that are.

In the end, I think I side with Queerty when they write:

Bruno doesn't need to be a finely tuned teaching moment; that's asking too much of mainstream cinema fare. But the film let's us laugh with and at stereotypes. It's a pornographic enterprise into America's remaining taboos. If the film starts even one conversation about "how wrong" all of that is, it's a success — and, dare we suggest, something we should support.

Voting Rights Still Need Protection

2009-06-23T13:13:00.008-04:00

On Monday the Supreme Court voted not to overturn the historic Voting Rights Act. The court narrowed the scope of the landmark legislation ruling that municipalities across the South that have had a clean record for the last decade can seek an exemption from the law.

Passed in 1965, the Voting Rights Act requires states and municipalities in the South to "pre-clear" any changes in their voting or election standards with the Justice Department in Washington. In 2006 Congress reauthorized the legislation, voting to extend the provision for another 25 years. The case the court ruled on yesterday was brought by a North Austin water district who claimed that the law it was unfair and outdated.

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said,

We are now a very different nation” than the one that first passed the Voting Rights Act. Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today.

Justice Roberts went on to say

The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable... Things have changed in the South. Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.

Oh no he didn't. He might as well have said, "Come on people, we have a Black President. Isn't it time to just remove 'end racism' from our national to-do list? What else can we do?"

The Supreme Court rules on individual cases using a slew of criteria, including many legal precedents, doctrines, and interpretations that I am not equipped to argue about. But the important issue here is not the legal rationale used to uphold the law; the important issue is the court's declaration about racial equality and equity that is dangerously close to a stance that minimizes the important role race and racism continue to play in our culture.

A recent piece on ColorLines.com illustrates that as much as White Americans want to pat ourselves on the back for electing a Black President, a closer look at the election results paint a picture of a nation still mired in a racist ideology. And as much as I love The South, there are significant geographical differences in voting paterns. Quoting from the ColorLines piece,

Exit polling discovered that between 84 and 88 percent of whites in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana voted for John McCain. In Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, the McCain white vote ranged from 76 to 73 percent. In other words, the white vote in the former slave states remained about what it was during Reconstruction. Overall, Obama won 46 percent of white women and 41 percent of white men, but not in the South, which, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, is “moving contrary to the rest of the country.”

The NAACP released a statement commending the court's decision to uphold the law, but made sure to draw a distinction between their organizational view on racial progress and that expressed by the high court.

Benjamin T. Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP said,

While some may think that voter discrimination is a thing of the past, it is clear that it is not. Jim Crow might be dead but James Crow Esquire is alive and well, and while we may not see fire hoses and police dogs any longer, [but] they have been replaced by false emails and polling station trickery.

Hilary O. Shelton Vice President for Advocacy and Director of the DC Bureau of the NAACP added,

When Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights act of 1965 in 2006, they compiled more than 16,000 pages of documentation and head from scores of witnesses in support of Section 5 and its continued relevance. We are very pleased that the Supreme Court ruled to keep this crucial provision [Section 5] intact.

Evidence of voter intimidation and voter discrimination are ongoing throughout our country. From thousands of people being turned away from the polls in 2000 in Florida, to the Ohio controversy in 2004, and even to polling place problems in St. Louis during the past election, it is important now more than ever that Section 5 remain intact. The Supreme Court did the correct thing and protected all people of color from voter discrimination and ensured that their voices will be heard.

It is extremely important that we not lose sight of the fact that a great deal of racism exists in our culture today. It's not hard to find examples of the manifestations of racism today, with acts of voter intimidation being merely one such example.

We must keep the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the books and not be lulled into complacency because we elected a Black President. We need to remember that while the results were not as close as the previous two elections, Senator McCain was the nominee of a party in deep turmoil whom the public rejected in Senate, House, state, and local races.

Though he wasn't personally running, the fact that President Bush is a Republican can not be overstated. He was wildly unpopular at the end of his term, as evidenced by historically low approval ratings. Senator McCain is not President Bush, but the fact that they are members of the same party, the party that at the time of the election many publicly blamed for the problems facing the country, must be critically examined in terms of how the election played out. And the fact that the Democratic nominee was not a White man is crucial in understanding what the elction results said.

Instead of basking in the celebration of electing a Black President (though he's really mixed-race or bi-racial, but that's a whole other discussion) and using it as a justification for tearing down all legal protections for people of color, we should realize that the fact the election was ever in doubt is more telling than the results.

And isn't it time we reexamine this whole states' rights thing? How much pain, anguish, and exacerbation of inequality does this outdated concept need to impose before we finally evolve to the point of just chucking this shit?

This is What Democracy Looks Like

2009-06-19T07:49:00.002-04:00

While the Iranian people struggle and fight to have their voices heard, we should recognize that they are providing a great model of what participatory democracy should look like. These folks are risking their lives to stand up and fight for what they believe in. We Americans, on the other hand, are too apathetic to stand up and speak out because it might require a little time and effort that could detract from our busy, yet simultaneously vacuous lives. Write a letter to my Senator about health care? I can't; There's a Jon and Kate Plus 8 marathon on right now. Besides, they don't listen anyway.

Remember the Presidential election of 2000? You know, that was the one that Gore won, but the Supreme Court handed to Bush. Remember the protests in the streets? Remember the outrage? Remember the tireless, enduring protests that demanded justice and promised to continue until justice was served? Yeah, me neither.

Check out these live blogs from Iran:

Nico Pitney - Huffington Post

Matthew Weaver - The Guardian

That's It? Seriously?

2009-06-17T14:42:00.008-04:00

Reacting to an avalanche of bad press and contributors pulling out of an upcoming fundraiser specifically targeting GLBT donors and issues, at 5:45 tonight President Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum that extends some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While some is more than none, in this case the difference is not so great.

The White House press office has issued a Fact Sheet that outlines the benefits to be made available to same-sex partners of federal workers. Here is the text of the press release titled, "Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination":

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2009

Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

In an Oval Office event later today, President Barack Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination. The Memorandum follows a review by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State regarding what benefits may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes.

Over the past several months, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State have conducted internal reviews to determine whether the benefits they administer may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees within the confines of existing laws and statutes. Both identified a number of such benefits.

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

The Presidential Memorandum to be signed today will request that the Director of OPM and the Secretary of State act to extend to same-sex partners of federal employees the benefits they have identified. The Memorandum will also request the heads of all other executive branch departments and agencies to conduct internal reviews to determine whether other benefits they administer might be similarly extended, and to report the results of those reviews to the Director of OPM.

The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

It is important to note that a Presidential Memorandum expires when the President who signs the memorandum leaves office. In addition, the most expensive and valuable benefit federal employees receive, health insurance, is one of the many benefits that remain out of reach for same-sex partners of federal employees.

Reacting to today's announcement, Leonard Hirsch, president of Federal Globe: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees of the Federal Government said, "Our analysis has been that it will take an act of Congress for the full suite of benefits such as health benefits and retirement benefits to be provided for same-sex couples and families." According to Hirsch, the executive branch has the authority to extend certain other benefits through departments and agencies, such as providing relocation costs for partners of federal employees.

Joe Solmonese, President of The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), made the following statement concerning the upcoming signing of the Presidential Memorandum,

Today’s Presidential memorandum committing to a federal workplace free from discrimination, including the extension of some benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, is a welcome and long-overdue step toward bringing the government’s policies closer in line with what America’s largest companies understand is good for business. Today’s presidential signature is the first brick in paving what is a long path toward equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. We commend President Obama and his administration for taking this beginning step to level the playing field but we look forward to working with him to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and guarantee the entire American workforce is free from discrimination.

HRC has worked with the President’s Transition Team since the election and White House Staff since the inauguration to provide them with substantive steps they can take to advance LGBT equality. The HRC's recommendations are outlined in “A Blueprint for Positive Change” – an exhaustive document detailing actions the President can take to make the lives of LGBT people better.

Sometimes Presidents need to take dramatic stands in order to advance their agenda. They need to not worry about polls and popularity, and do what they think is right. And it's much easier to do this when your party is in power in Congress. It appears that President Obama is either unwilling to take such a stand, or achieving equality for GLBT folks is simply not on his agenda.

What's worse is that the same can be said when it comes to health care, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, climate change, poverty, drug policies, and anything having to do with race and racism. This is indeed an administration that may be characterized as one ushering in change. President Bush rammed his agenda down the throats of Congress and the American people. His ideas were awful and misguided, but at least the dude's actions refelcted his beliefs. Is there anything other than consensus and getting along that this President believes in?

One Soldier's Perspective, Part 1

2009-06-17T11:58:00.003-04:00

I said last week that a childhood friend of mine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan agreed to write about his experiences and have me post them here. He is using a pseudonym, but the rest of his bio is accurate.

His story will not be limited to his experiences and time spent in combat, but will instead be a broader narrative about the wars, public opinion, what it's like to be in the military and not be in combat when others are, and some thoughts on the War on Terror. We hope to make this a weekly occurrence. Today we present part 1.

R.J. Strapper
US Air Force Academy, Class of 1997
317th Airlift Group, 40th Airlift Squadron, Air Mobility Command. We flew the mighty C-130H.

I don’t find myself having much of a perspective on the War on Terror. I fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq and while I was there I thought they were “just” wars. Take the meaning of “just” any way you’d like. My life changed forever on September 11, 2001.

I had just come back from Ft Bragg, North Carolina, late the prior evening. I went straight to bed and was awakened by an errant phone call at 7 a.m. As was the usual, I could not go back to sleep and decided to switch on CNN and try to fall back to sleep. It was at this time I noticed the burning World Trade Center. I remember thinking to myself that it was funny, someone had finally hit that building. The air traffic in the New York City area is some of the busiest and aircraft are always flying close to the buildings. I was up brushing my teeth when the second aircraft hit. Five minutes later I received my first phone call from the squadron. Pack your bags, we don’t know where or for how long. I know this sounds theatrical, I promise it is real.

Turns out we were designated into Alpha and Bravo alert status. Each alert posture has different criteria which is not important to the story. We did this for more than 48 hours and all we could watch was the news. My parents called, fear in their voices. They made the three hour drive to my station. They decided it was important to be with me. I was more than happy to have them with me as I was concerned where the future would take me. I asked them to rent some movies on their way. If you recall, there wasn’t anything on television or radio that was not “9-11” coverage. I had seen enough for a day and wanted to put my mind somewhere else. We did just that and had a nice evening. The next morning they left back to San Antonio and I faced an uncertain future.

My squadron would spend the rest of September and October preparing.

Homophobic Much?

2009-06-16T13:14:00.011-04:00

In another move signaling reluctance to deliver on the promise of change, the Obama administration continues to defend a Justice Department motion filed last Thursday that reaffirmed the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The motion moved to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer. Smelt and Hammer were challenging DOMA and its current governing authority that allows states to refuse to recognize marriages of same -sex couples performed in states that do allow same-sex marrriage. It also prevents couples marrying in states that recognize same-sex marriage from receiving Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint tax returns, and receiving any of the other benefits heterosexual married couples receive.

While the Justice Department's actions and the Obama administration's defense of these actions are not surprising, the manner by which these decisions were defended were.

Central to the Justice Department and the Obama administration's arguments are that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not bar states from denying out-of-state gay marriages. In justifying this claim the Justice Department cited prior cases of out-of-state marriages that were between (a) an uncle and niece, (b) a 16-year-old and adult and (c) first cousins. What the fuck? Nice change. I'm so glad I worked for the election of a President that would defend the portrayal of two consenting gay adults' desire to wed as analogous to pedophilia and incest.

In defending Part 3 of DOMA, which bars same-sex couples from any federal benefits, the lawyers from the Justice Department cited "cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage,". Then these asshole lawyers had the nerve to argue that Part 3 "does not discriminate against gays for federal benefits." Huh? How the fuck is that possible?

Because Part 3 of DOMA explicitly states that the federal government will not recognize gay couples, even if a state chooses to acknowledge their marriage, any claims of neutrality are out of the realm of possibility. It is equally as ludicrous to argue that DOMA is a "cautious policy". DOMA represents one of only two incidents in the history of the United States where Congress acted to restrict marriage. The only other time this happened was in 1865 when it made polygamy a crime.

Quoting now from Paul Hogarth on The Huffington Post:

Many federal employees are civil servants who cannot be replaced because the new Administration disagrees with their politics. And because the gay couple in this case had previously challenged DOMA when George Bush was President, it is no surprise that the Justice Department had attorneys ready to defend the suit. In fact, one of the lawyers who wrote the brief - Scott Simpson - is a Mormon Republican, and a holdover from the Bush Administration. Alberto Gonzales even awarded the guy for his legal defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Arguably, the Obama Administration could not replace him with a new attorney.

But the first lawyer listed on the brief is Tony West, an Obama political appointee. West served as California finance chairman for Obama's campaign, where he raised at least $500,000. He is the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who strongly supports gay marriage and is running for California Attorney General. His wife, Maya Harris, was until recently Executive Director of the Northern California ACLU. The ACLU issued a joint statement this weekend with other groups condemning the legal arguments in the brief, saying they were "very surprised and deeply disappointed" with the Obama Administration.

Of course, there is no evidence that West wrote the legal brief - or even knew about it. His name was on the brief, because he heads the Justice Department's Civil Division (which handles all lawsuits filed against the federal government.) But that means he supervises the attorneys who wrote it, and he can be held accountable. Before gay marriage advocates start asking whether Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the legal brief, they should ask West: (1) did he review the legal brief before it was filed, (2) if so, why would he agree to have it submitted as written, (3) if not, would he have done so and (4) why were the arguments appropriate?

I often hear that the Obama administration does care about the issue of civil rights for all individuals, but now is simply not the right time to address this matter. The economy is in the toilet, we are engaged in two wars overseas, and energy policy is in dire need of an overhaul. But this excuse is just that. It does not justify the administration's marginalizing of the issue, and these latest comments reflect an explicitly homophobic and heterosexist perspective.

It is difficult to find much coverage of this on the network and cable news channels; but thank god for Rachel Maddow. Maddow is talking about the issue, and doing so in a manner that accurately reflects the importance of denying civil rights to all non-hetero Americans. And last night Howard Dean joined her to discuss the matter. As Governor of Vermont, Dean was the first Governor to enact legislation that recognized same-sex unions. I still can't believe one stupid yell cost him the opportunity to run for President. I said it throughout the 2008 campaign, and still wish he was the President.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

For more on this issue, check out the Human Rights Campaign's response.

Waiting for Change

2009-06-15T13:37:00.006-04:00

I'm not a big fan of the instant analysis culture we live in. I can't stand watching news coverage of a breaking story when the reporters on the scene and the studio commentators have no idea what's actually happening, but they're glad to guess. They seem all too eager to simply talk over video, while admitting they have no idea what's going on. So, if you don't know what's going on, what can I possibly gain from listening to you? Why can't we just wait a few minutes, perhaps even hours, get the story right, then launch into premature analysis? I've given up on the idea of contemplation, reflection, and critical, thoughtful analysis filling the airwaves.

Because of my dislike for knee-jerk analysis that requires virtually no thought and marginalizes time as an enemy, I feel somewhat hypocritical making judgments on the Obama Presidency, as it is still in a stage of infancy. But clearly my hesitancy is not shared by those in the media, and there is perhaps no greater evidence of this than the insane amount of coverage that was given to his first 100 days in office.

I knew it was coming, but I was still overwhelmed by how much was made of the first 100 days of his administration. The internet, TV, an radio programs were filled with commentators assessing how successful the President had been in advancing his policy agendas. We were told of the seemingly endless amount of polls documenting how many Americans approved of his first 100 days. Folks were eager to make pronouncements about his historical legacy, comparing him to Presidents from the past, after this fraction of his term in office. It seemed odd to make such a big deal of a time period that represents about 7% of the four years he was elected to serve. How much can we expect anyone to achieve in this small amount of time?

So I tread carefully in my assessments of the early stages of the President's time in office, making sure not to make any statements or generalizations that might be construed as judgments on his entire term. But that being said, I do think it is important to take a look at what's happened, and perhaps more importantly, what has not.

While those on the right, and even some close to the center, did their best during the campaign to portray President Obama as a far-left radical, Socialist, and the like, those of us on the left knew that if elected, President Obama would be a center-left President, with an emphasis on the center part of that descriptor. His voting record gave no indication to think anything else. But we were hopeful that once in office we would see a changed man who would put less emphasis on consensus as a divine mandate. We held out hope that he would take advantage not only of his victory, but of the Democrats' new-found control of Congress, to push through an agenda that was reasonably close to progressive. It's only been 5 months, but we're still waiting.

So far we can only see the President as an extension of the 1980s New Democrat movement that produced folks like Bill Clinton. Democrats love Clinton and view him with a less-than-critical lens that fails to recognize all that Clinton's administration did. This list of hits includes dismantling welfare, supporting every pro-business and anti-labor trade agreement, escalating the incarseration rate of non-violent drug offenders, continuing the deregulation of the financial industries, and a widening of the income gap.

If we look at just a few of the important issues of the day, we see that President Obama has done little to nothing to usher in the age of change he promised. Troop levels are on the rise in Afghanistan and our presence there, in Iraq, and elsewhere in the region is not ending anytime soon. The healthcare changes the President is advocating are limited and weak, to put it mildly. He has ceded control of the debate to the for-profit insurance companies, beginning from a point that concedes that the end result will still leave them in charge. He has poured more money into the financial institutions that were the catalyst for the financial meltdown we find urselves in. He has refused to take on the military's don't ask tell policy because it's not the right time - maybe if every single interpreter is dismissed from the ranks the time will be right. And he has all but given up on real, meaningful, transformative environmental policies that might actually make a difference.

I am willing to give the President more time, and make an assessment on his performance that is based on a longer time period. But, for now, I am not happy that the President we have is the one I thought I we would have when I voted for him in November.

I don't love Bill Maher; I find him to be a bit smug and a lot sexist. He often oversimplifies issues, and his position as a sorta Libertarian, sorta leftist, while categorically different, is dangerously similar to intellectually vapid position of being liberal on social issues but conservative on economic matters. But I do find his program entertaining, and every once in a while I find his points intelligent and amusing. That was the case on Friday when he outlined some of the issues I mentioned in expressing his disappointment in the President's first several months in office.

While I don't really love Bill Maher, I do love Rachel Maddow. She is intelligent, thoughtful, respectful, and one of the few folks on any cable news network that doesn't believe that screaming makes your points more valid. Last week Maddow discussed President Obama's failure to act on a campaign promise to end don't ask don't tell in a manner only she can.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

All Together Now: "Fuck You, AMA!"

2009-06-12T12:53:00.017-04:00

Perhaps its time for doctors to replace lawyers as the profession we love to hate. Instead of using lawyers, let’s tell jokes like, “How many doctors does it take to stop a moving bus? Never enough.”

Fueling my rage today is the American Medical Association’s (AMA) decision to oppose any health care reform that includes a public insurance plan. This decision is nothing short of disgraceful and unmasks the AMA for what they have become – a self-interest group that first seeks to make medicine a more lucrative profession for doctors and then worries about patient care and issues related to access, costs, and equity.

In a paper sounding more like a part of a marketing campaign for capitalism than a statement from a group supposedly dedicated to providing health care, the AMA states that they oppose public options for providing insurance because

The AMA supports the insurance market reforms to create more choice and better access to affordable coverage for both individuals and small businesses.

Insurance market reforms? Are you fucking serious? These are the folks whose profits increase as our nation’s health decreases. And when was the last time you heard a physician speak well of insurance companies? I’m around doctors all the time, and all I ever hear is how insurance companies have made the provision of medical care worse for the patient and provider. They take the decision-making out of the hands of those who possess the most knowledge (physicians), instead putting them in the hands of business school trained insurance executives whose primary concern is profits, not health. Shit, at least they’re honest.

While the AMA’s latest action is extremely disheartening, it should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the path health care has taken in the US. And in many ways, the AMA bares much of the blame, as they have been behind the wheel, driving us all closer to the edge of the cliff. Examining the AMA’s history sheds some light on the issues, as it becomes increasingly clear that this is not an organization that is dedicated to human rights, including making health care a right for all people in the United States.

When the federal government was busy at work creating Medicare in the 1930s, the AMA was just as busy, engaging in a campaign to oppose the creation of the program, then proposed as a part of Social Security. They amped up their efforts in the 1960s, hiring Ronald Reagan to pump up the crowd at a meeting of the AMA Auxiliary by warning of the impending threat of Socialism if Medicare was created. Reagan concluded his not-so-prescient address by stating that if Medicare were to become law,

One day, we will awake to find that we have socialism.... One of these days, you and I will to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it was once like in America when men were free.

Fast-forward to today and the landscape of health care remains under the control of that capitalist system, with for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies wielding virtually unrestrained power. Not surprisingly, these entities seek to increase their bottom lines and their stockholder dividends, not the number of people who have access to quality and affordable health care.

Somehow we managed to create Medicare and escape the predicted outcome of becoming the dreaded S-word. Maybe if we had become a country more concerned about the well-being of everyone, and less so about maintaining the illusion of the benefits of capitalism, the millions of Americans who are without insurance today would find themselves in a better, more humane position.

According to the most recent data, during the years 2007-2008, 86.7 million people under the age of 65 in the United States went without heath insurance for some period of time. That number represents one-third of the entire population. Clearly the private sector is doing a spectacular job in providing affordable, accessible care for all.

Of these 86.7 million, 60% were uninsured for at least 9 months, while 75% were uninsured for at least 6 months. One quarter of the 86.7 million were without insurance for the entire 2-year period, and 20 percent were without for 13-24 months. Only 5 percent were uninsured for 2 months or less.

And the numbers are even worse for racial and ethnic minority groups and those living in poverty. In 2007-2008, 55.1 percent of Latino/as, 40% percent of African Americans, and 34% of other racial and ethnic minorities went without health insurance, compared to 25.8 percent of Whites. Nearly 60% of individuals living under the poverty line went without insurance during the 2007-2008. And the poverty line is a bullshit number that doesn’t capture all folks any reasonable person would consider poor. In 2008 the federal government defined a family of four as poor if their income was $21,200 a year or less. Try telling a family of four with an income of $25,000/year that they aren’t poor. And make sure you do so in a metropolitan area where the costs of living are higher.

In indicting the AMA, I am not indicting all doctors. The AMA is an organization that speaks for its 250,000 members. Not all doctors are members, and as is the case with any organization, there are members who disagree with this and other positions the organization takes. But what about those that remain members? This issue should serve as a deal breaker to those sitting on the fence, wondering if they can be part of an organization that takes such a position on public health insurance.

A growing number of doctors have felt their philosophical belief that medicine should be about service not profits has become so far from what the AMA stands for that they have quit the organization. One such doctor, Chris McKoy, writes on The Huffington Post about quitting the organization and the factors that led him to the decision to do so.

In reflecting his belief that the AMA has become too focused on financial outcomes and profits, McKoy states, “the AMA represents a physician-centered and self-interested perspective rather than honoring the altruistic nature of my profession.”

McKoy goes further and place much of the blame of the current state of medicine at the feet of the AMA. In particular, he states his feelings regarding the AMA in aligning itself more closely with for-profit companies, not patients.

Instead of advocating for patients, the AMA is supporting the private insurance industry, which has been a driving force in creating the dysfunction health care system we have today.

In addition to ending their affiliation with the AMA, a number of doctors who have seen their commitment to patient care at odds with the AMA have established several organizations to counter the AMA’s positions. Most notably is Physicians for a National Health Program, whose mission is the creation of single-payer national health insurance. Their site is full of useful information, including resources documenting the need for and benefits of single-payer health insurance.

The AMA can now be seen as nothing more than a lobbying arm for doctors who see practicing medicine as a means to wealth, with service as a mere possible byproduct. Their commitment to defeating public health insurance is only made worse by their lack of commitment to pro-actively advocating and advancing ideas and practices that promote health. This includes their long-standing efforts to disparage virtually all homeopathic and alternative practices and beliefs that do not fit under the umbrella of Western medicine. And their power and reach can be seen everywhere.

On June 8, Newsweek’s cover contained a picture of Oprah Winfrey with superimposed text that read, “Crazy talk: Oprah, wacky cures, and you”. The article’s basis was that Oprah and other non-medical professionals who publicize anything other than the institutionally legitimized and sanctioned means for promoting health and treating ailments and diseases are causing more harm than they are doing good.

Deepak Chopra recently wrote in response to Newsweek’s piece, which was the Newsweek norm of mediocre writing, poor research, and a limited and uncritical perspective.

Chopra has long been a vocal critic of the American medical establishment. He has been a champion of those treatments and remedies the medical community labels as alternative. In addition to their fight to minimize the possible benefits of alternative treatments, the AMA has been quiet on the need to reframe the way we view health by adopting a mindset that prioritizes wellness and prevention.

On a daily basis doctors don't deal in these things; few take courses in medical school centered on them. That's why a massive movement has arisen driven by patients themselves.

Much of the blame, as Chopra points out, can be traced to the medical community’s relationships with the pharmaceutical industry and the need to pump up bottom lines.

Denial also plays a huge part in this story. Mainstream medicine continues to downplay the enormous drawbacks of a health-care system that is addicted to drugs and surgery as the two constant drumbeats of treatment.

All this leads to large expenditures that produce little in the way of improving health outcomes. We spend more than any other nation on health care, yet our health outcomes do not see corresponding improvements because of where we spend the money.

Overall, this country's health care system is actually a "sick care" system. In 2006, $2.1 trillion were spent in the U.S. on medical care, 95% of which was spent to treat disease after it had already occurred.

In light of all of this, it is impossible for me to reconcile the dissonance and outright hypocrisy inherent in an organization that claims to prioritize health and well-being above all else while simultaneously rationalizing taking a position against single-payer health insurance. Maybe if you just keep repeating the mantra that markets and capitalism are the best means of making health care affordable and accessible I’ll eventually ignore the facts and become a follower in the cult that the AMA has created. It seems to be working for the members of the AMA.

Let the AMA know how you feel by calling (202) 789-7447. You can also submit a comment on-line here. And finally, you can mail correspondence to:

American Medical Association
515 N. State Street
Chicago, IL 60654

Challenging the Company Line on Afghanistan

2009-06-11T15:18:00.009-04:00

The vast majority of the media attention given prior to and during the war in Afghanistan has portrayed it as a war of necessity, not choice. This narrative eliminated virtually all dissent on the US's initial decision to invade Afghanistan, as all such voices were constructed as anti-American, out of touch, and not understanding the new world we live in. We failed to learn from history, jumping into war in a country whose history is filled with similar stories that never end well for the Afghani people or the invading nation(s).

But as the war rages on, now for more than 7 years, and we begin to understand the realities of the difficulties we face, the idea that this is not a war of necessity is beginning to ever-so-slowly garner media attention. It is still not the norm, but we are beginning to hear more voices that advocate a change in policy that does not include an increase in troop numbers. Key to the growing acceptance of this reassessment is our understanding of what's happening to the lives of the Afghani people, the people who will continue to live there with or without our presence. Or, at least those that survice our democracy outreach project.

Brave New Foundation has established the Rethinking Afghanistan project in an effort to document what is happening on the ground, as well as educate on the history and possible future for Afghanistan. Among the many amazing things they're doing is producing short video clips that provide different perspectives on the war and the need to rethink US involvement. The clips include statements from Afghan civilians, former US military personnel who served in the war, individuals who are experts in Afghan history and culture, foreign policy experts from across the globe, and US elected officials.

And further advancing the cause of silenced voices needing to be heard, I am thrilled to announce that beginning next week my blog will host a guest contributor. A childhood friend of mine who served in Afghanistan as a member of the US Air Force has agreed to do a series describing his experiences and perspectives. I am really excited and grateful. The two of us differ in our political views, and I'm sure that will be the case with at least some of what he contributes here. But that is not the point. The point is simply to expand the pool of voices we hear on important issues like this, and I think hearing from someone who has been there will do just that. Stay tuned.

Blue on Black (and Brown) Crime

2009-06-11T13:53:00.011-04:00

There's an editorial in today's New York Times that discusses the disproportionate percentage of Black and Latino police officers who are shot by White officers' friendly fire. Just last month a White NYPD officer shot and killed Omar Edwards, a Black officer, as he chased a suspect. While I agree with much of what the piece says, I have some problems with the following proposed solution,

To fight this problem, police departments need to do a much better job of preparing officers to work in an environment where colleagues come in all colors and ethnicities — and of raising awareness about how even unconscious racial stereotypes affect how they see the world.

I agree with the sentiment that police officers need to be trained and educated about those they serve, and those they serve with. This should include some training on issues related to identity, though I would advocate for a broader approach that includes training on issues related to gender, power, sexual identity, nationality, and so on. I do, however, think that the articulation of the causes of these horrific incidents as "unconscious racial stereotypes" is problematic, bordering on racist.

First off, the internalization of stereotypes, race-based and otherwise, may occur on the subconscious level, but rarely if ever do they occur when a person is unconscious. That's more of an issue of language, but it is one of my many pet peeves related to language. Even if I accept the fact that the use of the word unconscious is meant to mean subconscious, I still find this statement incredibly misleading.

The fact that police officers, or anyone else for that matter, internalize stereotypes in a manner that reflects a belief in their accuracy by their subsequent actions is not an accidental occurrence. It may not be the result of critical thought at the individual level, and it may not be intentional. A person may act in a manner that reflects thoughts and beliefs they did not even know lay inside them until the stimulus that brings about the behavior presents itself. This is interesting, and somewhat important, but it still reflects a misplaced focus on individual thoughts and behaviors. Such focus on the individual is the usual path taken when discussing issues related to discriminatory and/or racist behaviors (and sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc.). But this discourse is itself a representation of the problem.

If we accept the fact that the majority of White officers who shoot Black and Latino officers do so not as the result of conscious racist beliefs and intent to kill a person of color, but rather as a result of buying into the racist ideology that permeates our culture, we simultaneously dismiss the notion of these racist ideas being unconscious or subconscious. The individual who acts in a manner that manifests their internalized racist beliefs, such as a White officer shooting a Black or Latino officer, may internalize racist ideologies individually and subconsciously, but the bigger problem is the source - the stimuli that cause this process.

While the process of internalization occurs within an individual, it is influenced, in many cases even controlled by external forces. By using the language the editorial board at the Times uses, the carefully and methodically constructed intent behind the production and dissemination of racist ideologies is softened. This further perpetuates the notion that we are a culture that has advanced past racism being a powerful force; that harmony is the norm and hatred the exception.

This advances the myth that in contemporary America only a small number of select individuals, crazy people living in the margins, harbor a racist worldview. The days of widely-held racist ideologies and the behaviors that follow are a thing of the past. They are not. This is the goal, but it is not where we are. Language like that employed in this piece paints a rosier picture than the one that exists, and it only serves to make reaching that goal more difficult.

And the Times should know better, as the piece that makes this claim is the very same piece that highlights the importance that racism plays in the disproportionate number of minority officers being shot by their White colleagues.

Finally, what's up with the use of the phrase friendly fire? I understand the meaning of the term, and am fully aware that it simply indicates that a member of law enforcement or the military has been shot by someone on the same side and not a suspect, enemy, etc.; but perhaps it needs some reworking. I'm pretty sure that those who are injured and/or killed under such circumstances probably don't find the fire to be so friendly.

Miami does something good? Seriously?

2009-06-11T12:01:00.004-04:00

It's been just about five years since I moved to Miami, and I still feel like a visitor. I'm not so sure the feeling will ever wear off, nor am I sure I want it to. I feel better about living here because I don't really feel like I do.

All that said, it makes me happy when the city does anything right, and every once in a while I actually have feelings resembling pride. These feelings are rare because the city and county governments of Miami and Miami-Dade have become symbols of corruption and municipal governments' failures to act in a pro-active manner when it comes to anything related to planning.

In addition, remember that the Dade County vote count clusterfuck was instrumental in allowing the US Supreme Court to award the 200o election to Bush. Though I didn't live here at the time, I think it's fair to say that we all still feel the impacts of the recount being halted.

But today is one of those rare occasions where I feel pride in local government. Today the City of Miami, by a vote of 5-0, approved a measure that offers health benefits to its employees and their declared domestic partners.

While this measure in limited in terms of the scope of its impact, it will impact real people's lives in a significant manner and will also serve as a symbol that change and progress is indeed possible.

Henry Paulson's Makeover: Hero, Pig, or Both

2009-06-09T15:52:00.002-04:00

Lost in the majority of news stories about the current economic crisis in the United States and around the world is how the current conditions impact the poor. Just as was the case during the 2008 Presidential campaign, most media coverage focuses on the impact of the current economic conditions on the middle class, namely what’s happening in the housing market and on the stock exchanges. And while these things clearly impact a large swath of the American public, including millions who are far from being considered well off financially, they don’t directly impact the poor the way other, less publicized components of the crisis do. Take, for example, the price of oil and other commodities whose prices are determined primarily by wealthy speculators who manipulate the prices for their personal gain.

Today Matt Taibbi asks us to consider this and other issues in examining the role former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson played in creating and prolonging our current recession. As you might expect, Paulson’s record on such matters is appalling. Take, for example,

his non-intervention last summer when gas prices hit $4.50 a gallon thanks again to his old buddies at Goldman and Morgan Stanley, who juiced the commodities market with so much speculative cash that oil prices soared despite the fact that supply was up and demand was down all year? Do you remember that part? How about the way food prices soared thanks to the same commodities speculators? According to the World Food Program at the UN, about 100 million people joined the ranks of the hungry last year during the commodities spike.

Though the topics he addresses deserve attention on their own merit, Taibbi writes today in response to a recent piece on the Wall Street Journal’s website. Taibbi is responding to Evan Newmark’s Mean Street blog where Newmark asks that we reconsider the legacy of Paulson, and in doing so appropriately remember him as the national hero he is. No shit; dude really said that.

It's 20 years after he left office and we still bathe in a tub coated with a ring of filth left as a reminder of Reagan's disastrous economic policies. Twenty years is not a long time to shrug off the impacts of an ideology and accompanying policies so heavily weighted to favor the rich and powerful at the expense of the now endangered middle class, let alone those who live in poverty. If Reagan's policies are still so difficult to scrub clean, what can we reasonably hope for when it comes to ridding ourselves of the shit stains that were the W years?

Perhaps the most we can hope for in the immediate future is a more realistic and honest assessment of what happened over the past few years. After all, in order to have a plan for the future we must understand where we are today, and that requires an understanding of where we were in the past and what got us to this moment. But everyday we see evidence this even this doesn’t appear to be plausible.

Evan Newmark’s dillusional worldview merely serves as a representation of the battle to manipulate and control our collective memory, constructing it in ways that suit political purposes but do nothing to take responsibility for past errors and make things better going forward.

We all know that the Wall Street Journal is just like any other publication – it’s created by human beings, thus it inherently reflects a certain political and ideological perspective. But that’s OK. Usually the paper tilts to the right while remaining outside of the realm of get the fuck outta here with that overtly politically motivated, acritical, adolescent hero-worshipping bullshit trying to pass for journalism. But there are exceptions for every rule and Evan Newmark is one of those exceptions.

In his praise of Paulson, Newmark conveniently omits that he once worked at Goldman Sachs, where his boss was none other than Henry Paulson. Shocking, I know. Maybe it’s because he forgets to mention to this previous relationship that he also fails to mention that in 2004, while working for Goldman Sachs, Paulson successfully advocated for the abolition of capital requirements for the nation’s top five investment banks. This meant that these institutions no longer needed to have any actual money on hand to conduct their business. It worked out swell as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns saw their debt-to-equity ratios balloon to 32-1 and 33-1 respectively. You remember these companies, right? You have to remember because the policies that Paulson advocated for played a significant role in these supposedly indestructible institutions becoming nothing but memories. Newmark probably just forgot about this period of his life – a period that saw his personal wealth rise exponentially.

You can read more about the laundry list of offenses that Paulson and the policy changes he pushed for pull us further down the economic abyss by reading Taibbi’s piece. I’d like to just focus on the issue of how these issues impact the poor.

Speculators manipulate the price of oil and other commodities with a futures market (such as wheat, rice, soybeans, and precious metals) by pouring incredibly large sums of money into these futures markets. They are betting on the future prices of these commodities, but by dumping as much money as they do into these markets, they actually control and set the prices. Some might call this hedging your bets; some might call it cheating and immoral. Guess where I stand?

This is why last summer the price of gas at the pump rose to almost $5 a gallon while demand was low and supply was high. The price had nothing to do with supply or demand; it had to do with the behaviors of those who controlled the markets on which the commodity was traded. And this seems to be playing out again today in much the same way it did one year ago, as we’re seeing the price of gas once again rise, in a seemingly artificial manner.

Gas prices rising are bad enough, but when you compound that with the rise in food prices that usually follows, you see how these rich fucks’ personal game of monopoly impacts the lives of real people in dramatic ways.

Economic hardships impact those with less more than they do those with more. This sounds like common sense, but we construct a great deal of our economic policies in a manner that contradicts this. A uniform sales tax is but one example of a regressive means of imposing taxation in an equal yet inequitable manner. Paying a set percentage in taxes simply impacts those with less more than it does those with more. That is why this may be seen as an equally imposed tax that acts in an inequitable, and thus unjust, manner. It disproportionately impacts those who already have less. This is exactly the same as when oil and food prices rise.

People who are scraping to get by feel the slightest changes in gas and food prices in a way middle class (if there still is such a thing) and wealthy folks do not. The impacts of incremental price increases of essentials, when not matched with an increase in wages, is not merely a pain in the ass or even a hardship for poor folks. Such seemingly small changes can serve as the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. And as the stress and strain increases, as it has for lower income folks in the US for decades, it’s much more likely that every straw you throw on will be that final one.

This is made all the more troubling when you consider that many of the hardships that folks feel are caused by the actions of others not simply seeking wealth, but more wealth. It is the actions of those who can never have enough that push the already marginalized further into debt and closer to financial ruin, despair, and even extremes like homelessness.

It’s sad that we need to regulate our economy. I wish I viewed the world in a way that made it possible for me to join the cause of limited government conservatives who insist that government is the problem and people need to simply be left alone. Their argument is that when left alone to make their own decisions, without interference from the government, most people do what’s right. But it’s hard to embrace this view when we trace the problems we have today to their sources and discover that people being left alone, to do what they think is best, often results in behaviors that are solely focused on and driven by individual wealth accumulation, regardless of how they negatively impact others.

Recognizing Henry Paulson as a national hero takes us one step closer to a becoming a culture that is completely devoid of any commitments to caring for others. Paulson’s professional life has been defined by a series of actions that do nothing more than promote the idea that there is no we, only me. His life is an instruction manual of steps powerful and affluent folks follow to take care of themselves and other privileged folks, and how these use these practices are then vaulted to the status of something akin to a guiding moral philosophy. Paulson’s staunch commitment to making it easier for those who already have more than they could possibly ever spend to accumulate even more, while simultaneously making it all the more difficult for those without enough to simply meet their needs is a symbol of everything wrong with unregulated capitalism. Come to think of it, maybe Paulson is a perfect candidate for national hero.

Inclusive torture: The innocent get it too

2009-06-08T13:45:00.006-04:00

Back from a blog-free weekend. It wasn't intentional; I just didn't find myself with the time and/or motivation to post anything. I'll have to make sure that doesn't happen again. It is not my intention to make this a weekday thing. And thanks to all who have been reading regularly. I appreciate your support and hope the lack of posting for a couple days didn't cause too much of a disruption to your cycle of internet reading

Posts today are gonna be on the shorter end of the spectrum.

Former Guantanamo prisoner Lakhdar Boumediene's story is getting some much needed attention. Boumediene is an Algerian and Bosnian citizen. Shorty after September 11, 2001, he was arrested by Bosnian authorities for being involved in plans to blow up the British and U.S. embassies in Bosnia.

After Bosnian courts found him innocent, Boumedine was arrested and sent to Guantanamo, per the instructions of former President Bush.

He spent almost 8 years in Guatanamo where, surprise, surprise, he was tortured. Though he claimed innocence and protested his detainment for years, Boumediene remained wrongfully and unlawfully detained until last November when Federal Judge Richard Leon, a far right judge appointed by W, ruled that the government did not possess sufficient reason for detaining him.

Eight more months passed before Judge Leon ordered Boudemediene released. He was shackled and flown to Paris on May 15, 2009 aboard a U.S. military plane. Since then he has been in Paris receiving psychiatric and medical care.

He recently returned to his home in Bosnia and is now joining the swelling chorus of voices demanding that we take an honest look at the abuses (ie torture) of Guantanamo detainees. In addition to the Washington Post piece hyperlinked to above, you can also link to a great story on Salon.com that includes the televised ABC news interview with Boudemediene.

His story is fascinating, depressing, and important.

How about profit-free health care for all?

2009-06-08T13:24:00.009-04:00

Throughout last year's campaign for the White House, the primary issues of concern were the economy and the wars we're waging in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were a host of issues lost in this narrow perspective. Chief among these issue is health care.

I don't want to overstate the lack of attention given to this important issue. It was talked about, but rarely in manner that provided much in the way of depth or substance. And the primary context under which such conversations were held was the relationship between health care and the economy.

It's true that health care is an economic issue, and the issues associated with the costs of delivering and providing health care (as well as research, training of health care providers, and so on) deserve attention. Economics should factor into decisions made about health care. But they should only factor into the conversation as we move to details, after broader decisions are made. Economics should factor into, not drive the direction of the future of health care in the United States.

Thanks to some recent polling, we now know that approximately 119 million Americans support single-payer health care. So then why are advocates of single-payer not at the table as representatives from the insurance industry, big pharm, Congress, and other for-profit industries that profit on our current reactive, for-profit model meet to discuss the future of health care?

It appears that public opinion is not factoring into the decisions that will be made regarding the future of health care. The only way single-payer advocates can be heard is if they disrupt and protest the proceedings to point out this glaring omission. This has occurred several times, as nurses and doctors have interrupted proceedings and been arrested to draw attention to the issue.

The issue is of vital importance as the lobbyists and marketing & PR machines hired by the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical industries get moving. Side note - is there a greater convergence of evil than PR, marketing, big pharm, and insurance companies? Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ain't got shit on these douchebags.

It is an outrage that individuals who are not involved in research, prevention, and the delivery of care operate with a for-profit mindset. They run their companies as if health care was simply another commodity, like sweaters and stereos. And we shouldn't let the health care providers off easy either.

The American Medical Association (AMA) and other such professional organizations have been way too quiet on this issue. And some doctors are just as guilty as insurance and pharmaceutical companies in adopting a medicine-for-profit mentality. I understand you went to school for a long time, but if service isn't part of why you do what you do, you should do something else. I hear the pharmaceutical companies are hiring.

The reality is that while I surely don't think of health care as a commodity or service industry, as a culture we have constructed it as such. We believe access to health care is the same as access to designer brand clothing. It is determined by how much money you have and the highest quality of both is limited to those who can pay the most for it. That's the American way.

It's also the American way to pretend things aren't as bad as they are. As long as we can tune in to American Idol and wonder about the sexual identity of the participants, we're doing just fine. The problem is that we're not doing fine.

In addition to people not being able to afford and/or access quality health care, we also see the impacts of our current model in terms of developing new treatments and cures.

We see the impact of profit margins in the research and development of drugs that prolong life and, in some cases, improve the quality of live. A great example of this is the amount of money we've spent on cancer research and the results this spending has yielded. We have made great progress in early detection, treatment, and improving quality of life. But these are not cures.

But like all drug dealers, big pharm wants you to be a loyal customer that always comes back. The money is in treatment, not cures. Chris Rock said it best when he said, "You think the government is gonna cure AIDS? NOO! They can't even cure athlete's foot!!! The government curing AIDS? That's like Cadillac making a car that last for fifty years... and you know they can do it! But they ain't gonna do something that fucking dumb! Shit! They got metal on the space shuttle that can go around the moon and withstand temperatures up to 20,000 degrees. You mean to tell me you don't think they can make an El Dorado where the fucking bumper don't fall off?"

Just like we can make quality health care a right, and available to all; we just don't.

Will the Real Ronald Reagan Please Stand Up

2009-06-05T15:06:00.003-04:00

Short post drawing your attention to a great piece that asks that we reexamine our love affair with Ronald Reagan. We need to get beyond the mythology and our adolescent love affair with a man who did a great deal of harm here and abroad. This is particulalrly important now as we begin to see the long-term ramifications of his misguided policies. W was right about at least one thing - history does provide the final verdict.

And for some information about the horrors of the Reagan administration's legacy on HIV and AIDS, see this piece.

Thinking about Reagan inspired me to write a story about the influence seeing Reagan speak had on me as a child, and how it continues to impact me today. I have told this story many times so figured I should write it up. Enjoy.

How Reagan Accidentally Shaped My Politics

2009-06-05T15:05:00.001-04:00

My first memory of having any interest in politics and/or political figures is seeing Ronald Reagan speak in 1984. Reagan was on the campaign trail, seeking reelection for a second term in office. I was in 5th grade, my first year in public school. We took a fieldtrip to hear the incumbent President speak, and I was blown away.

Like many others, I fell under the spell of the kindly Grandfather persona Reagan put forth, and swore I would be a Republican for life. I came home excited to tell my parents of my newfound love of Reagan and interest in politics.

My memory of seeing Reagan speak is today nothing more than a memory of being at a particular place while an event was occurring. I have no idea what he speak of, or any recollection of details of the day – the weather, the setting, and so on. But my memory of what happened in my home, with my father, is crystal clear.

My mom wasn’t home, so I figure I’d just tell my father my story first, and then repeat it later to my mother. This excited me, as I wanted to tell the story of my day of acquiring wisdom from the President as many times as possible.

I remember the transformation of the look on my father’s face as I progressed through my story. When I began speaking my father had an inquisitive, curious look, indicative of a genuine desire to understand what had made his 9 year-old son so excited. That look morphed to disappointment, anger, and finally downright horror as I went on and on about how amazing Reagan was and how I was only going to vote for people like him, Republicans, when I grew up. How could anyone with half a brain do otherwise?

Though I sensed feelings coming from my father that didn’t match the emotions I was feeling, I didn’t stop to ask about the source of his emotional cues. Maybe he was reacting to something else on his mind? Maybe I was just misreading his emotions. I became a lot smarter hearing Reagan speak, but I still had my limits. Whatever. I was filled with a sense of euphoria I had never felt and assumed his demeanor couldn’t possibly be related to my excitement. I mean, what else but pride and excitement could any parent feel as her/his child explained how they had just gained an understanding of what the world was all about? And this realization came from my exposure to a man who had, and was going to continue to, change the world and make it a better place for us Americans. And really, all I was doing was relaying facts – Ronald Reagan was as close to god as any human could hope to be and I was committed to advancing the cause of the Republican Party and from this day forward would dedicate my life to this end.

My father let me finish my story, exhibiting a patience I look back on with envy. I know I could not have sat through the entirety of such a terrifying tale. When I was finished, my father immediately stood up.

We were in my parents’ room, a space I seldom occupied. The only time I ever spent in this room was during early morning wakeups and for conversations about my latest behavior problems, the latter being much more frequent. Being in this space for this moment conveyed a sense of validation to me. I thought I had something important to talk about, something usually reserved only for grown-ups, and I was right. My dad said so.

I was sitting at the foot of my parents’ bed, on the corner closest to the desk chair where my father had sat and listened to my tale. We were only 3-4 feet away from each other, but that wasn’t close enough for the conversation that was about to transpire.

My father stood for a few seconds, perhaps trying to collect his thoughts, perhaps rethinking the whole public school thing; he took a couple steps in my direction as he moved forward and to his right. He left his chair, positioned so we sat in front of each other, on a bit of a diagonal, allowing us to look forward as we sat face-to-face. He swung around to the foot of the bed, choosing to sit directly next to me. Actually, next to me doesn’t describe the scene accurately.

In that moment my father came as close as possible to sitting on me, while still sitting next me. The large difference in our weights resulted in my sliding even closer than if we had been seated on a hard surface. His body acted likes a tractor beam I had seen on space ships in Star Wars movies. I was in his range and there was no escape.

We sat side-by-side, he to my left. He extended his right arm around me, placing it on my right shoulder. The tracking beam/arm combo had me trapped. He started by telling me he loved me. I have since learned the effectiveness of this rhetorical trick. This is a common and effective practice employed by parents when beginning a conversation with a child where you are about to explain to that child that the world is not what they think. It is admirable that they are thinking of such matters as a child, and it is because of this stated love that you feel compelled to drop this knowledge bomb.

My father started by telling me that we can’t believe everything politicians tell us. And, he said, this is true for all politicians. They have to get elected to get and/or keep their job, and in order to get elected they have to say things that people want to hear. So, sometimes they lie. And sometimes they don’t exactly lie, but they say things in a manner that sounds better than what they’re really saying. But more often than not they lie. And Reagan, it seemed to my dad, had a special way of doing this that not only made lies, no matter how much evidence of their falsehood, seem like they were the only possible truth. He then went on to more substantive issues, namely money, with a little bit of talk about race mixed in.

He explained to me that most Republicans care more about rich people than they do all people, and Reagan was the king of this kind of care. He said that one of the things that Presidents do is help to decide what kind of laws we have. And for the past four years, Reagan had made clear through the laws he championed and the rhetoric he espoused that if we take really good care of rich people, they’ll take really good care of the rest of us. If we just let rich people keep more of their money, they’ll spend it in ways that helps everyone. I’m not sure if you used the term “trickle down economics” or not, but the message was pretty clear with or without the name.

This sounded good to me. As a middle-class kid in 1980s America I was inundated with messages that being rich was what it was all about. But then my father explained to me that this philosophy, whether you think it sounds good or not, had not proven to match its stated aims when put into practice. Rich people were getting to keep more of their money, which meant they got even richer. But the benefits the rest of us were supposed to see had yet to materialize.

He then explained that even though this was the case, Reagan continued to make sure that the rich got to keep more of their money. Poor people got poorer, and folks like us stayed about the same. This didn’t make sense to me. How could such a benevolent man do such a thing?

My dad went on to explain in further detail how politicians say things over and over to people in hopes that this repetition will make people believe what the politicians are saying. Even if the things that happen in people’s lives tell them what they’re hearing is false, they believe it anyway. It’s a trick of sorts, but it works.

He went on to talk about more about issues related to poverty and how it didn’t seem like Reagan really cared much about poor people or poverty. He certainly wasn’t doing anything about it. One thing he was doing was convincing people that Black people on welfare wanted to be on welfare instead of working, and that most of them cheat welfare so they can get more money. He described to me what welfare was and how no one, Black, White, or otherwise, would want to be poor.

The conversation went on for a while. My father told me that we can’t judge a politician or make a decision on whether we like him or her just because of their party affiliation. We have to judge each person as an individual. This sounded reasonable. I said I guess that meant that he voted for some Republicans and some Democrats. He laughed and said that every once in a while that might happen, but not too often. While he does follow his own advice of looking at everyone individually, this usually produces the same result of voting for the person with a D next to their name.

There were other topics like the propping up of foreign regimes, not doing enough to make progress on issues of racism and sexism, and the demonizing of Jews that we discussed. But what resonated the loudest with me was the issue of money and class, and how a person could run a country with apparently little regard for the many and much for the few, all with a movie star smile on his face.

The picture my father painted was stark and real; it was not candy-coated. Some might think such a portrayal would make a child disillusioned, feeling helpless to make the world better. Instead of turning me off from politics, this stoked my interests and set me on a path of critical thinking. I never took things at face value, instead I was always questioning. This part caused some problems as a child, but I think in the end it was worth it.

When I tell this story, I sometimes jokingly say that this was the beginning of my indoctrination to the politics of the left. But there is some truth in that statement, and I don’t think it’s all that bad.

We constantly indoctrinate our children with our words and deeds, though not always in explicitly defined moments such as the one I describe with my father. But we enact a life that tells our children what is right in matters ranging from religion, to what we eat, to how we treat each other. Chief among these is what we teach about how we accept or do not accept our civic responsibilities to be informed, critical, and participatory members of our Democratic Republic.

I began indoctrinating my children in the gospel of the left from the moment they were born. I hope in doing so I don’t set them on a predictable path of rejection and rebellion, leading to them joining the Young Conservatives, or some other such group. I guess if I begin to see that happening I can always sit them down for some good old-fashioned purposeful indoctrination. Like father, like son.

Gay rights, Bigfoot, and The Lochness Monster

2009-06-04T09:03:00.007-04:00

Yesterday was a big day in the fight for the equal protection of human and civil rights for all persons in the United States. We’re not there yet; every victory should be cause for celebration, but we should realize we have a long way to go still and not congratulate ourselves too much.

In case you haven’t heard, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed legislation on Wednesday that legalized gay marriage in the granite sate. The law will take effect January 1, 2010. In passing this legislation New Hampshire becomes the sixth state to open the doors to marriage to folks who are not heterosexual. Currently Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa are the only states where gay marriage is legal. Vermont passed legislation legalizing gay marriage that will become law September 1, and Maine has passed similar legislation that takes effect September 14.

Several states have passed laws that do, or soon will, recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. New Jersey, Washington and Oregon recognize same-sex unions, but not marriage. There is a bill making its way through the state legislature that, if passed, would legalize gay marriage in New York. Washington, D.C. recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships, as do Nevada and California. And D.C. recently passed legislation that recognizes the legality of gay marriages performed in other states. Contrary to popular belief, Hawaii does not recognize gay marriage or same-sex civil unions. They do, however, allow for two unmarried people (not just heteros) to register as being in a “reciprocal beneficiary relationship”. This is said to entitle the individuals to some rights and benefits of marriage. The word some is the problem.

I frequently post articles related to gay marriage, homophobia, and heterosexism on facebook. Facebook being what it is, these stories are then viewed by all my facebook friends. But since a large number of my facebook friends are just that, facebook friends and not actual friends, many of the people who see my frequent postings of material on these issues do not know me very well.

This has led to several people sending me messages wondering why I seem to care so much about the last legal form of discrimination and oppression we still endorse by law. The clear implication is that since I am heterosexual, my interest in the issue seems odd. I’m pretty certain none of these folks would question a person who identifies as anything other than heterosexual for being so interested. If the issue doesn’t impact me personally and directly by limiting my freedoms and the privileges heterosexual marriage allows, why do I care?

To me, this line of questioning is representative and telling of our uber-individualistic culture. But the truth is that I do think these issues affect me directly, just not in the ways reflected in the mentality of the question.

I am not impacted by heterosexism and homophobia in nearly the same way an individual who is not heterosexual is impacted. The same may be said when it comes to racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, discrimination against those with disabilities, and so on. The existence of these benefits me. I am the beneficiary of unearned privileges, whereas those who are marginalized feel the pain of unearned oppression. But while I benefit from the existence of these forms of hate and discrimination, I also see myself as being negatively impacted.

The term social justice gets thrown around a lot, particularly by people in positions of power and privilege who use the term to describe some type of work they do with/for (it’s usually for) marginalized folks. And while many use the term, few ever describe what they mean.

For me, social justice means a lot of things. One of the foundational principles of my conceptualization of what social justice means is that our collective, as well as our individual, well-being is determined by the conditions of our lives and of our daily lived experiences. We are all connected.

This may be simplified into a bumper sticker slogan of, “When one is oppressed none are free.” Please note that I ain’t hating on bumper stickers – those who knew the Integra know why. But while this may sound and/or look good, it is pretty easy to argue that affluent folks living in the United States do not have to feel the pain of the more than three billion people in the world (almost 50% of the planet’s population) who live on $2.50 or less per day. And I don’t say that as a transition to an “I feel your pain” argument. Believe me, Bill Clinton is one of the last people I would ever quote, particularly when it comes to the issue of gay rights. The man has a less than distinguished record on such matters. But I digress.

I say that individuals who are on the top of the economic/identity-based hierarchies of our world do not automatically feel the pain of oppressed people after I make the argument that we are all connected because this argument is just that, an argument. It is a position I take and a worldview I employ. But I recognize that not all people view things this way. In fact, many would label this way of thinking as collectivist (how awful), or even socialist (now that’s pure evil). And while I don’t really care what labels are thrust upon me, I do care that the ideas that comprise these philosophies are seen with such disdain.

I see myself as an individual, but I also see myself as a small part in a larger whole. And if I have to privilege one over the other, I think the individual is far less important. I feel the impacts when the larger whole of which I am a part is one that does not promote basic rights and liberties for all people. I am impacted by the fact that I voluntarily live in a culture that decides marital status should afford individuals tangible, financial benefits, but who you fuck determines whether or not you are entitled to receive said benefits. And for the record, I don’t believe the state should be recognizing and sanctioning any monogamous adult relationships, let alone incentivizing them. And that’s why this isn’t about marriage at all; it’s simply about recognizing that when we are part of a group that acts in violent and repressive manners, against targeted groups of people, it does so in our name. We are responsible.

This also isn’t about how this impacts friends and family members, or the fact that I should work hard to eliminate all possible forms of oppression and injustice my offspring might face, should one or both them not be heterosexual. This type of self-motivated fight for social justice is not a fight for social justice at all. It’s a self-serving fight for the betterment of individuals experiencing injustice. Fighting against injustice simply because it is impacting those you love, or because it could do so in the future, is anything but a fight for social justice. Such an act may serve as a first step; it may be just the eye-opener a privileged parochial person needs to pop the bubble they gleefully exist in. But in and out itself, it is the definition of a selfish act.

And before you react to the notion that personally felt and lived oppression does not serve as a legitimate catalyst for social action, take note that I am not arguing such. Privileged folks (and god knows my White, heterosexual, married male ass is in that camp) fighting to right the wrongs that harm and oppress individuals they know is an entirely different situation than a person fighting against the oppression they feel the brunt of. These two are nowhere near analogous. But this still leaves the question of why I care unanswered. It also leaves the explanation of this not being about marriage incomplete.

I engage in these fights for the simple fact that I believe we are a we. When we recognize that we are doing harm, we have a responsibility to act. We all have a voice, and we have a responsibility to use it. We have a responsibility to point out injustices, by screaming if necessary, and then do something to rectify these injustices. Speaking out is one of many things we can do. It is the least we can do, and the least we should feel the responsibility to do, irrespective of the fact that so many don’t. It is our job to lead by example and, if necessary, guilt others into joining us.

And in joining us we must embrace the responsibility of articulating why this fight over gay marriage is both vitally important and not about marriage at all. The fight over marriage is but one arena where legalized discrimination against non-heterosexuals exists. It is a carefully chosen symbol, and a first step. Because even if all gay people were allowed by law to be married tomorrow, these same folks would, in most states and municipalities, still face legally-sanctioned discrimination in seeking employment and housing, and in openly serving their country in the armed forces (thanks again Billy C).

The binary view of an issue, policy, or existing social condition impacting one personally and directly versus it not is a false dichotomy. It is nothing more than a tool used to promote the promulgation of the ideology of individualism. That’s why there is no such thing as gay rights. There are only civil rights and human rights.

The fight over gay marriage is not about granting gay people something different, based on the fact that they’re gay. This would be a granting of privileges, not rights. No, this is about recognizing that being gay is not a justification for the denial of rights.

So when you hear the talking heads on TV and the radio ramble on about non-heterosexuals and other oppressed minority groups wanting special rights, know that you do have something in common with them, at least in terms of the last word - rights.

We disagree on the moniker special, but we do agree that is about rights, not privileges. Remind them that privileges are special; rights are not. Then ask these individuals, the disproportionate number of whom are White, affluent, heterosexual, married men, if what really makes them upset is granting rights to others, or if it’s the inevitable transformation of these special privileges they enjoy merely becoming rights when all share in equal opportunities. Get back to me when you have an answer.

Cheney, torture, and secrecy: The ultimate trifecta

2009-06-03T10:19:00.002-04:00

From the No Shit department of today's news making headlines - The Washington Post is reporting that former (thank god) Vice President Dick Cheney presided over meetings with senior members of Congress on torture (aka interrogation methods).

The former VP has made no secret about his support of torture during his tenure in office or since. He has justified these behaviors at every turn and has repeatedly stated he regrets nothing and torture makes us safer. So what's new in today's story. There are, in fact, several new revelations from today's story.

1. While his support for these methods/techniques has not been secret, the fact that the VP oversaw meetings with Congressional leaders, at the precise time when support for an investigation and/or elimination of these techniques was building, is something we did not previously know.

2. When the CIA handed over documents to the White House last month that listed every member of Congress who attended these briefings, the VP's name was absent.

3. In the aforementioned documents that the CIA released last month, the CIA was listed as the facilitators of the meetings Cheney apparently presided over. The VP sought to add pressure and convince skeptical members of Congress of the value of torturing enemy combatants; in aligning himself with those from the CIA, he conveyed his personal advocacy in a manner that gave the appearance of the CIA sharing the same view. And then there's the obvious issue - the VP of the US, sworn to uphold the law, once again saw it fit to use his own judgment on what that actually means.

Not that we needed any further evidence of the previous administration's disregard for the law and human rights, but apparently this extended to falsifying official documents. And make no mistake about it, when documents detailing the participants and proceedings of meetings related to anything, let alone issues like the controversy over state-sanctioned torture, omit the presence of the VP, that is falsifying documents.

It is true that Cheney's name was not on a list that named all those not present at the meetings. Therefore, it might be argued that the documents weren't falsified, they simply weren't as comprehensive as they should have been.

A child can rationalize not telling the whole truth as not equating to a lie, and every once in a while many of us probably play that game out in our heads when we're faced with a situation where we know telling the entire story will result in negative consequences. But regardless of the action we decide to take, we know that not telling the truth is tantamount to a lie. Perhaps this childlike view of what is and is not the truth is where the problem lies.

It is possible that the root of all of the immoral and irresponsible behaviors that the President, Vice President, and other key members of the previous administration engaged in is an underdeveloped sense of morality. Perhaps these individuals really do think what they did was right, even though the evidence tells us all how very wrong they were. Maybe they're not liars or lacking any sense of what is right and what is wrong. Maybe they're just adults whose capacity to understand morality and reason stopped developing when they were children.

Either that or Jesus told them to do it. I'm not sure which is more plausible.

Capitalism, Self-Esteem, and (Mis)Education

2009-06-02T12:10:00.005-04:00

Lunchtime is always a good time for a little blogging.

Check out this great piece on the problems of American higher education and how they manifest in our daily lives at the micro and macro levels.

As someone who works in higher ed, I couldn't agree more with the points Astore raises. I would, however, go a step further in adding that the problems he identifies are exacerbated by a sense of entitlement that virtually all of the undergraduate students I work with possess.

This sense of entitlement is not all about money and privilege, though those students that do come from more affluent, privileged backgrounds enact the behaviors Astore discusses in a more heightened manner. Rather, the sense of entitlement today's college students possess is one they have learned through years of always being told they are special and brilliant. Parents bathe their children in unnecessary and unearned praises from the moment their child is born, the first usually being a presentation of a medal of honor for having a good bowel movement. We praise too much, and teach too little.

These students have never been allowed to fail; instead their helicopter parents divert them from all possible dangers and swoop in to save the day in the rare occurence that pits them face-to-face with the possibility of failure.

With have become consumed with valuing and promoting self-esteem at the cost of virtually everything else. But the way we have constructed self-esteem produces people that are anything but self-confident and self-assured.

Real self-esteem comes from expereinces that must involve failure. It is defined by how we cope with and adapt to failure. We learn who we are not when everything is going just the way we want it, but when things are anything but desirable. We build confidence from the lessons we learn in our mistakes, disappointments, and even utter failures.

By not allowing children to risk and fail, we shield them from experiences that actually might build character and serve as teachable moments. By promoting and building self-esteem in the manner we have, we make it impossible for children to become adults that can be expected to be anything but a grown-up version of a 3 year-old stomping her/his feet and throwing a fit when they don't get their way.

Execution: Just a part of life in Texas

2009-06-02T09:42:00.005-04:00

Too busy today to craft any longer entries. I am working on a piece related to the discourses we employ to rationalize our positions on issues related of death, life, and choice and how individuals and groups seem to employ different discourses and conceptualizations of these when it suits their interests of a particular issue at hand. Namely, what does it mean to name yourself pro-life as it relates to the issues of reproductive rights and demonize those who favor coice as anti-life, and then advocate the ues of the death penalty? The piece is about the issues in a broad sense, as well as the now much publicized case of Troy Davis, a man convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Georgia 20 years ago. But I digress.

I'm posting this small entry to draw attention to what's scheduled to happen in Texas today. And though this type of event has become a frequent occurence in the Lone Star State, we can't allow it to become mundane.

Barring any unforeseen events, Terry Lee Hankins will be executed by the State of Texas at 6 PM tonight. Hankins will become the 200th person executed during the reign of terror known as the Governor Rick Perry administration. By comparison, during President Bush's term in office, 152 people were executed.

To be fair, Perry has served approximately two and a half years longer as Governor than did W; but being fair is not something either of these two men ever seemed interested in being. I do think it's fair to say that both men are fans of the death penalty and have demonstrated this by their frequent approval of murder by the state. Man, some days it's harder than others to wrap my head around the fact that I grew up in Texas.

In addition to the 199 individuals that were put to death under Perry, it is important to note that under his watch 35 people sitting on death row, previously convicted of murder and sentenced to die, have been exonerated by DNA evidence not presented during their trials.

Even if we disagree on the philosphical merits of state-sanctioned murder, it's pretty hard to disagree that juries and judges are people, and, as such, they make mistakes. And this says nothing about the mitakes of police officers, witness testimony, and the disproportionate number of people of color sentenced to death. And make no mistake about it; this issue, like all, yes all, others in America, is about race. That doesn't mean it's exclusively about race, but it is about race.

Hankins does not provide an example of possible mistakes in a conviction. Cases like his provide proponents of the death penalty with the kind of ammunition they need to make their case for continuing the practice. But whether or not he, or anyone else for that matter, did take the life of another, the fact that we so callously and casually pass judgement on the worth and value of another human being's life should make us pause for a moment and rethink the whole endeavor.

President Obama recently said that both opponents and proponents of a woman's right to choose should attempt to have dialogue, starting with identifying some common ground. That common ground, as it is so often said to be, is the shared desire to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies (I hate that term, but it's what is used) and abortions. I'd like to think this same sort of thinking could apply to those on opposite sides of the death penalty debate. But as 6 PM looms nearer, and both the tally of individuals killed at the hands of the state and those cleared of wrongdoing continue to tick upward, I'm not so sure that ground exists.

Update: Getting attention and action steps

2009-06-01T13:22:00.007-04:00

It seems like some of the parties responsible for the atmosphere I wrote about in my last posting are not pleased with being called out. Michelle Malkin and Newsbusters.org (dedicated to exposing liberal media bias) both embedded hyperlinks to my piece on their blogs today. They link to my Daily Kos diary entry, not this blog. Either way, many thanks.

The issue is gaining attention, and one thing you can do to make a difference is sign this petition that calls for O'Reilly to take responsibility for his actions in creating this violent atmosphere.

And last but certainly not least, kudos to Frank Schaeffer, a man honest enough to admit he had a role in the death of a fellow human being. Schaeffer has written before about his involvement with the religious right and his later regrets. This is an honest admission of how his actions, and those of others in the movement, directly contributed to Dr. Tiller's murder.

More proof that it's anti-choice, not pro-life

2009-05-31T20:01:00.006-04:00

The anti-choice zealots on the right, supposedly guided by their faith and belief in god, proved again today why their preferred label of pro-life is anything but accurate.

Dr. George Tiller, a controversial abortion provider in Kansas, was gunned down as he entered the lobby of the Lutheran Church her regularly attended in Wichita, KS. He was on his way in for Sunday services.

Tiller gained national notoriety thanks in large part to several individuals in conservative talk radio and television, namely Bill O'Reilly. As one of the few doctors in America who performed legal late-term abortions, Tiller became the target of anti-choice, patriarchal prophets in the media who somehow have a direct line to god and are perfectly clear as to what god believes. They are so certain that they know beyond a doubt what is divinely mandated that they seem to act on earth as the servants of this mandate by doing all they can to control individual women’s' reproductive rights. And this includes taking the life of a physician who disagrees with them and their beliefs; and they are merely that, beliefs - not truths, facts, or any else remotely related.

These people's convictions are so strong, and their grasp of their god's position on this matter so clear, that they have emboldened themselves to go far beyond simply controlling the legal options available to pregnant women. You know, because having your beliefs controlling other people's ability to make a decision about their own bodies wouldn't be quite enough. These modern-day crusaders go even further and believe they have a responsibility to create a climate so intolerant, threatening, and just plain violent, that those seeking an abortion, or those seeking to perform the legal procedure, will shudder and hide in fear. If their tactics aren’t enough, and an individual like Tiller continues to march on in the face of these acts of terror, they’ll just take it upon themselves to end another human being’s life. Tragic irony.

This piece provides an excellent overview of the conditions under which Dr. Tiller had to live and practice medicine for the past 25 years. The anything but pro-life list of incidents he has been involved in includes being shot in both arms, and his clinic being bombed. Dr. Tiller also had to live under federal protection after the FBI discovered he was the top target on an anti-abortion group’s assassination list.

This moment is tragic for the friends and family of Dr. Tiller. It is also tragic for the fate of our culture. We must, at this moment, speak up, out, and against those who have helped to create and stoke a climate of hate and intolerance towards those who believe in a woman’s right to choose, seek an abortion or counseling on such matters, or are involved in the medically and legally sanctioned practice. We must name those who contribute to the creation of an atmosphere that results in a man losing his life for performing his job. And when we call these people out we must cast a wide net that includes those wastes of humanity in the media like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham; but first and foremost must be Bill O’Reilly.

For years Bill O’Reilly has taken his causes, including the advancement of anti-choice policies, to AM radio (this, thankfully, is now a thing of the past) and TV’s top-rated program on any news network. We all know O’Reilly provides anything but news, and except for a few minutes a day neither does anyone else on that RNC propaganda vehicle; but if you call yourself something for long enough, apparently it sticks. The same goes for how some people actually think this network masquerading as a news outlet is fair and balanced. If they say they are, they must be; right? Clearly you can pee on some people’s leg and tell them it’s raining.

O’Reilly has used his lofty platform to call Tiller a murderer, barbarian, and disgrace to the medical profession. Bill O also coined the nickname “Tiller the baby killer” and made false accusations that he performed illegal procedures.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Bill O and the rest of these folks are individually or collectively directly responsible for Dr. Tiller’s death. But, were I one of them (I just threw up a little in my mouth), or if I subscribed to the logic these folks use in situations that suit their causes, I would blame them directly.

Accoridng to Bill and company, when it comes to young people committing acts of violence, the list of factors that cause such behaviors always includes hip-hop, video games, music videos, music lyrics, and the interwebs. It’s amazing that these forms of media directly and indisputably cause, or at least greatly contribute to, acts of violence. This is particularly true when we speak of young people, and even more so when these young people are poor and Black or Brown. Amazing how that works.

Unfortunately for Bill, his popularity acts as a disservice to him in this instance. You see, when you host the most watched television show on cable five nights a week, and, until recently, also host a multi-hour radio program that is consistently among the top ratings-earners, you do have an impact. Your voice influences the public debate, discourse, and climate, no matter how poorly thought out your ideas are. The intellectual merit of your ideas doesn’t matter. What matters is that you have a venue that a large number of people turn to. When you use this venue, this platform, to articulate a hateful message, and when you do so in a violent manner, you must be held accountable for contributing to a climate that facilitates the perpetration of violent acts by imbalanced, angry, and god-delusional people.

But to dismiss today's actions as those of a fringe, marginalized individual whose sentiments do not accurately represent those of others would be a dangerous move. And if we needed proof of the number of people who in agreement with Dr. Tiller's murder, or at least sympathetic to the killer and her/his motive, check out this discussion on Free Republic. Unfortunately, these are the acts of one, who feels like many.

Finally, I wonder if when Bill and the rest of the rightwing hatemongers and blowhards take to the airwaves tomorrow to spew their daily dose of dumbed-down and vile rhetoric, they will even talk about this, let alone call it what it is – a terrorist act. Actually, that was a lie. I don’t wonder; unfortunately, I already know the answer.

First step gay marriage, next step people marry ducks

2009-05-29T18:50:00.002-04:00

Perhaps just as ridiculous as the war on drugs has been the fight to keep heterosexism and homophobia codified by a prohibition against marriage for all those not heterosexual.

Among the more ludicrous arguments propelling this movement is the idea that if we legalize gay marriage we then put ourselves on a track to legalize polygamy and human beings marrying animals. The slippery slope argument is always put forth by the simple-minded, but as many people in our illustrious nation fit that bill (see ratings for American Idol), it often works.

Pat Robertson, noted spiritual leader, hate monger, and god profiteer, is one of but many of the geniuses that has stated that the step right after legalizing gay marriage is legalizing humans marrying ducks. No lie. He said this shit.

Sometimes humor is needed to keep you from losing your sanity or just giving up. Check out this amazingly funny video on what a world with people marrying ducks would look like.

You mean not all pot smokers become meth addicts?

2009-05-29T18:30:00.003-04:00

The war on drugs has been a colossal waste of money and has destroyed millions of lives. In other words, it's been just as stupid as its name.

One of the foundational arguments of those advocating complete prohibition of all drugs has been the gateway theory. You know this one. It posits that marijuana should be illegal and those who use and sell the insidious herb should do hard jail time because using marijuana inevitably leads to using heroin, crack, and crystal meth, which then leads to wild crime sprees.

As I'm sure those reading this (if anyone is) can attest, this is not exactly always what happens. I'm sure a few of you have sampled, or experimented, with the green demon.

Here's a link to a great piece on the overwhelming research that points to the fact that the gateway myth is just that - a myth supported by ideology, propaganda, and a need to keep certain drugs illegal so others (alcohol industry and big pharm) can keep their profits up.

Black Woman becomes Rabbi...In NC!

2009-05-29T17:36:00.003-04:00

I didn't know there were any Jews in Greenville, NC. Apparently there are enough to form an actual congregation, and there new spiritual leader is the first ordained Black female Rabbi.

I'm not a fan of organized religion, but this tickles me for a couple reasons.

Any time barriers based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, age, disability, etc. are broken, that's a good thing.

Second of all, I'm sure the Orthodox and hard-core nuts are freaking out. That too is always a good thing.

Mazel Tov Rabbi Stanton!

Help! There's a Puerto Rican Woman About to Enslave All White People!

2009-05-29T14:25:00.007-04:00

Too much work that has to get done to post a more lengthy piece today. But I gotta keep the momentum going, so I'm posting but keeping it short. I know, you're worlds are now shattered. Somehow I think you'll gather the courage and the strength to pick up the pieces.

Somehow the progress we've made on issues related to race/ethnic-based discrimination has brought us to a point where privileged white men (and Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin) can talk about racism and oppression of whites by persons of color without simply being dismissed as ridiculous and absurd. The airwaves are full of folks talking up the racist record of Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Media Matters has put together this minute and a half compilation of clips from the past few days of not-so-critical folks (seems like a prequisite for being on TV) making such claims. The list of noted intellectuals, race activists, and scholars on this clip includes Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, and Lou Dobbs. Not exactly the role call at a MENSA meeting, and I'm pretty sure that's not a coincidence.

In addition to the video, Media Matters has also put together this list of myths being put forth about Judge Sotomayor, her record, and her beliefs.

Kinda makes you question this whole progress thing when individuals are allowed public platforms to simplify racism by dredging up the tired and weak arguments about so-called reverse discrimination and reverse racism.

Racism, in terms of how it manifests in the present moment and its historical roots, is contextual to a particular country, culture, and/or group. Racism in the US is not simply about X group discriminating against Y group (or Y, Z, A, B, and C for that matter). Racism in the US is about a White supremicist model that created and still controls all public and private systems and structures in our culture. There are unearned privileges that come with being White (and male, heterosexual, married, etc.).

Indigenous folks and people of color are and have been systematically oppressed in intentional and public ways, as well as through insitutionalized and insidious means that are simply woven into the fabric of our culture and our lives and accepted as the way it is. Electing a multiracial President does not make this all go away in one moment.

While all this blabbering about a Puerto Rican woman raised in the projects in the South Bronx being a racist is going on, the prison population remains disproportionately Black and Brown, poverty and infant mortality rates remain skewed based on race and ethnicity, and minority children continue to drop out of school at rates much higher than their White peers.

Man, this oppression against the White man has to stop. Otherwise, before you know it, we may even have 2 Black US Senators. Of course, the way things look with Senator (for now) Burris, we're much more likely to end up with none.

Torture, Pictures, and the Big Picture

2009-05-28T16:17:00.003-04:00

I almost always find fault with comparisons and analogies of any sort to Hitler, the Nazi regime, and the Holocaust. Like countless other such inane examples throughout history, attempts by the hawkish right in our previous administration to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and the anti-choice zealots’ labeling of the post-Roe, pro-reproductive rights era of US history as the American Holocaust are intellectually lazy and dishonest. They are overly simplistic rhetorical moves designed to distract from a critical examination of the individual issue at hand by categorizing one person, event, conflict, and/or policy with those universally thought of as repugnant (at least in terms of public discourse in the US). The purpose is to end a debate before it even begins by framing a perspective as irrefutable, the only logical and moral conclusion possible.

This method of constructing an argument sets forth a foundation that the individual constructing the argument believes leaves her/his opponent(s) no room to maneuver. Individuals and groups who engage in such deceptive and dishonest, not to mention morally repugnant tactics, believe that by putting forth an argument predicated on the grouping of something in the same category as such horrifically inhumane and criminal individuals, groups, and acts, they leave their opponent(s) no choice but to (a) concede their position and see the light, or (b) be labeled Hitler and Nazi sympathizers.

We have seen this and other similar methods of advocating a position many times throughout our nation’s history. A belief is articulated as fact. It is not a conclusion that accepts and allows for nuance and disagreement. It sets forth that the position espoused is not the result of careful intellectual, emotional, and/or moral analysis and reasoning; rather it is fact and the only possible conclusion resulting in the acceptance of a universally held belief set forth as the foundation of the argument.

We saw this immediately after 9/11 when President Bush set the tone for the 7 years of hell and intolerance that would follow when he famously said you’re either with us or against us, when referring what we would come to know as the War on Terror. You’re either one of us, a good guy, or you are a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. Being a terrorist and/or sympathizer means you hate America and freedom (and apple pie, baseball, beauty pageants, reality TV, fast food, and the other cornerstones of American culture; oh, and anything French too of course). And being one of us means you have no time or interest in nuance or understanding of other cultures, their history, and how they see the world, including what they think of us.

According to this way of thinking, it is inconceivable to simultaneously be against terrorism and be empathetic (not sympathetic, there is a difference) to how a fundamentalist person of faith in parts of the world we have ridiculed and shat on as much as possible, living in conditions beyond anything the word poverty captures, might view things differently. This is clearly a dangerous and false binary.

It is possible, even desirable, to understand the rationale a person has for forming an opinion without agreeing with the conclusion they reach. It is possible to both understand what drives someone to acts of violence, even terrorism, without condoning or sanctioning their acts. But we have been told otherwise by many of our illustrious leaders, and this way of thinking (or rather not thinking) has had dire consequences.

It has contributed immensely to the horrific xenophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, anti- immigrant climate that permeates our culture today. And it is this very same method of demonization that has also led us down the road to torture.

We torture people who are not us; they are them. They are less than us, less than human. They do not share our basic, foundational values and beliefs. And we demonstrate this difference by torturing them via means including rape. And we wonder why folks in other parts of the world don’t instinctively chant, “U-S-A, U-S-A” and welcome us with open arms when we invade and occupy (otherwise known as liberate) their nation. An understanding of all of this is key in understanding the issues surrounding the photographs depicting torture at Abu Ghraib and other detention sites.

And it is with all this said that I make an exception to my rule of dismissing comparisons to the Holocaust. There are many similarities between the argument to release the photos of US military and security personnel torturing detainees, to see these acts ourselves, and the Allied forces’ documentation of the atrocities they witnessed in liberated concentration camps.

Upon seeing the unfathomable sights that he bore witness to when entering his first concentration camp in Ohrdruf in 1945, General Eisenhower famously said, "The things I saw beggar description...the visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations to propaganda."

Now, contrary to popular belief amongst many today, including false and widely circulating emails of the past several weeks, Eisenhower spoke explicitly of his desire and need to bear witness, not take photographs. But, he and others on the ground quickly realized the need to document the atrocities as well. He knew, as reflected in his quote above, that just as he could not imagine what he was seeing with his own eyes, neither could virtually any other human being. What he saw was so horrific, so grotesque, it needed substantiation. It needed documentation. It needed to be photographed.

And that is precisely why these pictures of individuals torturing other human beings in the name of the United States, in our name, are so important. But lost in the consuming debate of whether the pictures should be released to the public, amidst all the screaming and yelling of freedom of information versus emboldening our enemies, is a more important issue. That issue is that these pictures are evidence, proof of wrongdoing to the highest degree. These images prove, in a way nothing else ever can, the manifestation of an us vs. them ideology taken to such an extreme that we lose sight of the fact that even if we do believe that there are individuals who wish us harm, and are beyond reason, they are still human beings. And if we seek to make the same claim of humanity about ourselves, we must confront these horrors by bearing witness and we must keep them for proof when those in the future dispute such things ever occurred. But more importantly, we must use these pieces of evidence to take action and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Our actions define our values and who we are. It is easy, in the vacuum of a hypothetical situation, to declare that you believe in anything, including the basic tenets of human rights. It is much more difficult to prove yourself when confronted with an actual situation that makes you realize that the values and principles you so clearly, firmly, and assuredly believed were part of your moral framework are much more complicated than you ever imagined. It is what you do, in those moments of intense personal moral conflict that determines whether you truly believe in those values.

We must decide what we believe. We must decide whether we are a nation that believes in human rights when it is convenient, in certain situations, or whether we are a nation of adults that understands that there are repercussions for acting on your beliefs. Actions always produce consequences. And often, inaction produces even greater consequences.

And that is why whether or not these pictures become public record for us and the rest of the world to see is not what maters most. The pictures exist whether we see them or not. There are already individuals around the world who are committed to fighting against us, our interests, and what we purport to stand for. Do not accept the argument against the release of these pictures that lays as its foundation the harm that will surely ensue the moment the images become public. This is merely that old trick, decked out in new garb. Our policies serve as a far better means of recruitment than these pictures ever could. But, again, publishing these pictures is not nearly as important as what we do with the knowledge that they exist because of what they depict. The images were not staged. They are a means of bearing witness to what occurred.

Instead of spending energy arguing about whether we, the people, deserve to see these images, we must devote our energy to making sure something is done about what these images depict. We must prosecute the individuals responsible for these heinous acts. And though this will upset our consensus-building, looking to the future and not the past President, this includes bringing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the individuals who at the least oversaw, and at the most directed these atrocities conducted in our name.

Make no mistake about it; these pictures are proof of war crimes. Plain and simple. These acts are the definition of crimes against humanity. Just because folks on our side ordered them, acting in our name, doesn’t change this. We must act accordingly and demand justice be rendered. Anything less is conceding that we don’t value and believe in human rights. Instead, we admit that we value human rights, but only some humans, and only some of the time.

Profits Over People

2009-05-27T08:30:00.004-04:00

It’s hard to make any sense of the various news reports we get bombarded with regarding the state of the economy. The latest indicators point to things improving at the end of the year, though not as dramatically as initially predicted. Gotta love predictions from the same people and sources that had a large role in creating all this. Why do we still give these assholes a platform?

Some things we do know - home prices keep giving new meaning to the concept of the bottomless pit, and more and more people are out of work and losing their homes. It’s perfectly clear that shit is bad and people are hurting. Lots of people are hurting in ways they never imagined possible. So why is it that we don’t seem to be questioning the fundamental principles of the system that got us into this mess in the first place? Why do we accept the premise that a few tweaks here and there, and beefed up regulations will make everything better? We act like children unconditionally believing our parents when they tell us not to worry and everything will be ok, because we simply don’t want to face the harsh reality that the vaunted system of capitalism just might not be so wonderful after all.

Our culture has become so obsessed with wealth and excess that we can’t even see what’s right in front of us. We listen to the talking heads in the media and from the business community when they tell us that our system is still the best there is, and we should expect downturns like the one we’re experiencing. We have to take the good with the bad. These are the same multinational corporate conglomofucks that led us down this road, into this sea of despair. But we listen to them because they have shiny suits, perfect teeth and hair, and represent all we wish to be.

Above all else, the one thing these profit-obsessed assclowns represent that we aspire to become is rich. And we continue to accept the ludicrous notion that in order for there to be some that are rich, there also must be some that are poor. Just because something gets said over and over again doesn’t make it true. And if it is the case that there do need to be the poor in order for there to be the rich, why don’t we just reject both? Why do accept this disparity instead of a more equitable distribution of resources?

Wealth distribution continues to be more and more disparate. The rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer for the past several decades. There is no longer such a thing as the middle class in the same way there used to be. We have embraced a system of capitalism on steroids that not only values profit, but does so in a way that marginalizes the importance of all else, including our fellow human beings and their well-being.

We’re driven to become an exception, a person who is part of the rich. And we are consumed with this despite the fact that history and the current state of things tells us that only a miniscule fraction of us will ever be in a position to make this possible, let alone have it actually happen. So we buy into the fairytale that serves the interests of those authoring the myth, and turn off the part of our brains that controls critical thinking. We become unable to question, to recognize that things are happening that point to the existence of huge disconnects between the ability to make a profit and care for humanity at the same time. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the dissonance in the simultaneous increase in homelessness and home foreclosures. We have more vacant dwellings and more people without a dwelling. What the fuck?

Homelessness has never been about a lack of supply. There are no “No Vacancy” signs adorning the metro areas of the US. Homelessness has always been about greed and a lack of concern for our fellow human beings. Can’t afford to pay what the market dictates? Well fuck you, your ass can sleep outside. And your kids too.

I mean really, how insane is it that we don’t stop and ponder the fact that we are all aware of the increasing number of houses and apartments that sit vacant, while we also see an increase in the number of those forced to live in shelters and on the streets? Kinda seems like the two are related, maybe one issue could even provide a solution to the other? Na, fuck that; it’s all about the Benjamins – those that adorn our currency, not those that are forced to live on the streets.

It’s times like this when I miss George Carlin the most. In addition to his general mastery of the English language and his understanding of how the powerful have used language throughout history for shady purposes, Carlin had a particularly venomous streak for capitalism and the super rich.

I dug up this 1992 piece on homelessness and golf that I think is particularly relevant today. This clip is particulalrly important to me not only because I hate both golf and homelessness, but because it's the first thing I remember that got me to begin to question the construction of arguments and positions via the use of language. Click here to view. Enjoy.

Constitutional Matters You Might Not be Thinking About

2009-05-26T14:04:00.001-04:00

Just when you became complacent, thinking the only talk of changes to the US Constitution you would ever hear about would involve gay marriage and abortion, a shining intellectual beacon from the right steps in and shakes things up.

Current US Representative and Georgia GOP gubernatorial hopeful Nathan Deal has put forth a proposal that would change the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Ratified in 1868, the amendment grants US citizenship to any person born in the United States. This means that if your parents are undocumented, but you are born in the United States, you are a citizen. Period, end of story.

Apparently the suffocating anti-immigrant climate that we currently live in is a bit too tolerable and lenient for Rep. Deal. He doesn’t believe that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to allow for individuals to enter the country without documented status and have a baby who would then be granted citizenship as a birthright. And apparently this practice has become commonplace, even problematic, though there is absolutely no evidence that points to this.

I’m always fascinated by those who claim to have insight into the mindset of the intent of others’ actions. I find it particularly interesting when we get into debates about the intent of laws passed and/or court decisions made. I would agree with Rep. Deal that it probably wasn’t the intent of those living in 1868 and just coming out of a civil war to amend the Constitution to give citizenship rights to those whose parents do not possess proper legal documentation to be in the United States. The amendment was intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves who were born in the US. But the original intent of the amendment is not what is important. What is important is the spirit of the amendment.

I wonder if Rep. Deal remembers that we are a nation founded on the principle of White supremacy. The Spanish, French, British, and other Western European colonial settlers believed that the indigenous peoples occupying North America were savages who needed to be saved.

Our country exists because of the systematic and legal murder and rape of the indigenous peoples living here for centuries before the arrival of Europeans. They then pillaged and plundered their lands, stripping all the resources for personal use - my how times have changed. The remaining indigenous folks were then forced to specified parcels of land called reservations.

While these events were occurring the economy was being built on the backs of slaves kidnapped from their homelands across an ocean, forced to be build a better country for others to inhabit. And this was all done legally, with clear intent.

So it with all this in mind that I ponder, or rather dismiss offhand, the proposal of the Rep. from Georgia. You see, Rep. Deal, most of us don’t want to live in a country whose policies reflect the intent and ideas of those from the past because if we still operated on the intents of laws passed 20 years ago, let alone 100 or 200 years ago, most of us wouldn’t be allowed to be here.

Initial thoughts on President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee

2009-05-26T13:30:00.000-04:00

One of the reasons my interest waned the first couple times I attempted to keep a blog was my inability to write short pieces. Posting became arduous, and I just stopped. With that in mind, I am committed to writing shorter pieces this time around, though my first post is not representative of this new mindset. Again, we’ll see what happens.

As all of you by know, today President Obama put forth his first nominee to the Supreme Court when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I follow politics fairly closely, but I am not a legal scholar. Therefore, I must admit that what I know about Judge Sotomayor's record and beliefs is fairly limited. As soon as Justice Souter announced he would stepping down from the bench, Judge Sotmayor’s name was thought to be among the favorites to fill his seat. So, I’ve been reading up on her for the past few weeks. Based on that, and what I heard from her and the President today, here’s what I think right now.

First of all, I am thrilled that the President selected a woman and a Latino. It matters. As Judge Sotomayor herself once said, who we are, where we come from, and the experiences we have had in life define how we see everything, including the law. I’m sure this will be a Republican talking point when they make the claim against her, but her public recognition of what seems to me to be obvious is a breath of fresh air.

I liked that the President cited Judge Sotomayor’s intellect as a major factor in her receiving the nomination. This should go without saying, but after the last administration, it’s pretty clear that intellect is often minimized, even marginalized and pathologized.

I’m not so excited that the President stated that Judge Sotomayor is not someone who sees things through an ideological lens? Really? And how is that possible? We all see things through an ideological lens; and those who don’t, or at least claim not to, should be questioned as not having intellectual acumen. An ideology is what helps us see individual actions and circumstances in a larger context. We all live our lives with ideas of what is right and wrong, just and unjust. To suggest otherwise is simply political pandering.

Finally, it looks like despite all the right’s claims of socialism and the like, the President is behaving much as he has throughout the course of his life – as a moderate, slightly to the left of center pragmatic politician. While I like much of what I know about Judge Sotomayor, she is not a radical, or even what I would consider to be a staunch progressive. History shoes that it’s hard to predict what kind of Justice Judge Sotomayor will become if/when she is confirmed. But if her history is any indication, we can expect to see a Justice that believes more in incremental changes than sweeping, monumental ones. Here’s hoping I’m wrong.

So steroids are worse than racism? Please explain

2009-05-25T18:36:00.000-04:00

So I’ve decided to try blogging again. This is my third attempt at blogging, but I feel more motivated to keep at it this time. That’s what I said last time, so we’ll see what happens. Since my first post comes during Memorial Day Weekend, the unofficial start of summer in the United States, I figured baseball would be an appropriate topic to address.

I’m a big sports fan, and baseball and college basketball are my favorite sports. While pro football has gained in popularity (mainly due to gambling), the popularity of baseball has leveled off some. This is particularly the case for younger folks – anyone under 50. Attendance numbers keep going up, but it is rare for me to meet a sports fan reasonably close to my age that considers her/himself a baseball fan first and foremost. Baseball doesn’t dominate sports coverage at the national level the way football does, though it still reigns supreme in some places – New York and Boston, for example. For the past few years, the baseball stories that have garnered national attention are almost always related to steroids and other performance enhancing drugs.

I’ve never really cared much about steroids and who uses them. You’re an adult and a professional athlete; shoot up horse steroids for all I care. If it allows you to do your job better, go for it; I know I would. The argument that it matters because kids follow the lead of professional athletes is simplistic and beyond asinine. If we’re looking to athletes to be role models simply because they have a particular skill set that allows them to make a living playing a game that we voluntarily pay to witness, we have much greater problems than steroids. Sir Charles was right when he said parents should be role models for their kids, not athletes.

So while self-righteous sports commentators and so-called purists have been indignantly calling Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and countless others cheaters, I’ve been enjoying the game as much as ever. I’ll always think of Bonds and Clemens as the best of my time and two of the biggest assholes ever – but not because they took steroids (allegedly).

It seems that the issue matters a whole lot more to the folks who have public voices - the media and those who decide who gets in the Baseball Hall of Fame (the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association) – than it does the average fan. People keep going to games and buying merchandise. And most folks would prefer more home runs, regardless of how it happens.

The issue of steroids and performance enhancing drugs is always framed around the concept of cheating. Baseball players who use(d) are cheating the fans and the game. Baseball is pure; and sports are supposed to be a meritocracy. Everyone starts at the same place and the finish line is visible and finite. And more than any other sport, baseball’s records and numbers are sacred, and known by more than just the casual fan. The last two decades have produced numbers that cannot be compared against those players from cleaner eras produced, or so goes the company line. And more than anything else, this all goes back to Babe Ruth and the legacy of his cult of personality.

The mythology of Babe Ruth is just that – myth. Babe Ruth was one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game, according to the numbers he put up. And beyond just the actual number of home runs he hit, most sports commentators and writers point to the difference between his production and that of his peers when (re)constructing the myth of the Bambino. But just like the today’s players, The Babe’s accomplishments must be contextualized as occurring in a particular time period. More specifically, why the fuck do we rarely hear mention of the fact that Babe never faced many of the best players of his day?

You see, we romanticize the past to the point where we forget that Babe Ruth only played against White ballplayers. This important issue is rarely mentioned by the overwhelmingly white talking heads that moralize and aggrandize daily about the purity of the game.

Players from the past 20 years will always be viewed with a lens that minimizes their accomplishments as occurring in the steroid age. But what about the fact that until 1947 all Major League baseball players compiled their statistics while only playing against other White players - this includes those put up by Babe Ruth, Cy Young, and a gaggle of other legendary names. And players from the Glory Days of the 1950s and 1960s (isn’t everything in the past considered glorious by someone?) played in an age where White ballplayers still dominated clubs’ rosters (the Red Sox didn’t integrate until 1959!). And Latino players, who know dominate the game, were virtually non-existent. This is to say nothing about the broader issue of the game becoming globalized in the past 10-20 years.

The point of all this is that we must remember our history as it occurred, not as it is told through those who wear rose-colored glasses and gloss over important issues like segregation. And much of what influences the stories that are told is who has voice to tell them.

So the next time your hear someone like Mike Lupica (he is perhaps the worst thing to ever happen to sports media) or your Grandfather wax and wane about the glory days gone by and the accomplishments of players from when the game wasn’t tainted, ask them why legalized segregation didn’t taint the game but steroids have. Get back to me with their answers; I can’t wait to hear what they have to say.