Dan Savage has a great summary of the police raid on a Fort Worth, Texas, gay bar over the weekend (on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, no less). I wasn't there so I don't know what happened, but when five officers put a man in a coma and bust people for "public intoxication" in a BAR, a bar that was singled out among the all the alcohol-serving establishments in Fort Worth... well, something stinks.
But it's the police department's initial response that's shocking. The police chief says that people in the bar made inappropriate advances on the officers and groped them. First of all, I can't imagine anyone being so blitzed that he doesn't realize that groping a cop on official business is a bad idea. But even if we stipulate that the men in the bar said all sorts of nasty things to the officers and "touched," I still call BS on their response. They're trained law enforcement officers, for pete's sake. Unless someone in that bar pulled a weapon, they have no excuse for what they did. Zero.
Speaking of Savage... the other day he linked to a blog at Beliefnet that might just be the single dumbest thing published in the history of the Internet: a post about how gay marriage will only hurt women because, when all social sanctions against men sleeping with men are gone, all the straight men will turn gay and leave us gals all alone. FAIL on about 14 dozen different levels. Don't just read his original post; read his attempts to defend himself in the comments.
This post made it clear to me that the most vociferous opponents of same sex marriage are not operating on the same assumptions that most of are, and that their position is based on a deep-seated fear of homosexuality itself. This guy seems to honestly believe that being gay (or straight, I guess) is only about sex. Not love, not companionship. Just sex. I think that's really sad. Also, his apparent belief that sex is only "male penetrates something until he has an orgasm" just made me sad for his wife, but that's a whole 'nother thing.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
It's Thursday. Sarah Palin is outraged.
I'd be getting Sarah Palin Outrage Fatigue if it weren't still so darn entertaining. Today the taxpayers of Alaska paid for Gov. Palin's PR staff to draft a response to a photo-shopped picture that subbed a right-wing radio host's face over that of one of the governor's kids. Apparently the snow-mobile off-season brings them not much else to do.
So, I get daily Google alerts about the college where I work, which bring me links to anything about our college posted on the Web. Mostly it's news articles, but occasionally we get the odd blog trashing us for something we've done past or present. And you know what we do? Read, delete. No wasting my time drafting and issuing a statement refuting the blogger's opinion. Why? Because I have more important things to do, one. But mostly because one of the Top Ten rules of PR is that you never never never never dignify a juvenile commentary with an official response. Why? Because then you're making a story where there wasn't one. (Note that the CNN.com story is not about the blog, but Gov. Palin's response to it.)
Unless, of course, you're an attention whore who ascribes to the belief that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Shady used car dealers swear by that logic - not governors of sovereign states who harbor higher political ambitions. Your name in a headline is not always a good thing.
If Gov. Palin wants to brand herself as a leader with gravitas and sober judgment, she needs to do one of two things: a) ignore this BS, like the current occupant managed to do to all those ass-hats who insist he's the Anti-Christ; or b) get a lower-level surrogate to respond for her. If Palin and her people insist on turning every Internet critic into a media opportunity (which will keep them quite busy), then she needs to employ a small army of attack dogs to do the dirty work. She should appear to be above this petty crap.
And, as I've written before, the surest way for Gov. Palin to prevent her family from being used as fodder for people who want to lampoon her is for she herself to stop using them as props. What's good for the goose, Governor.
So, I get daily Google alerts about the college where I work, which bring me links to anything about our college posted on the Web. Mostly it's news articles, but occasionally we get the odd blog trashing us for something we've done past or present. And you know what we do? Read, delete. No wasting my time drafting and issuing a statement refuting the blogger's opinion. Why? Because I have more important things to do, one. But mostly because one of the Top Ten rules of PR is that you never never never never dignify a juvenile commentary with an official response. Why? Because then you're making a story where there wasn't one. (Note that the CNN.com story is not about the blog, but Gov. Palin's response to it.)
Unless, of course, you're an attention whore who ascribes to the belief that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Shady used car dealers swear by that logic - not governors of sovereign states who harbor higher political ambitions. Your name in a headline is not always a good thing.
If Gov. Palin wants to brand herself as a leader with gravitas and sober judgment, she needs to do one of two things: a) ignore this BS, like the current occupant managed to do to all those ass-hats who insist he's the Anti-Christ; or b) get a lower-level surrogate to respond for her. If Palin and her people insist on turning every Internet critic into a media opportunity (which will keep them quite busy), then she needs to employ a small army of attack dogs to do the dirty work. She should appear to be above this petty crap.
And, as I've written before, the surest way for Gov. Palin to prevent her family from being used as fodder for people who want to lampoon her is for she herself to stop using them as props. What's good for the goose, Governor.
How does a white girl respond to racism?
So, in an earlier post about Juneteenth, I mentioned encountering a woman who – well, I can’t imagine why she was there, honestly. I’m standing there watching the step show when I notice this elderly white woman park her lawn chair right next to me. Cool, I thought, to see an older person there, when most people (including me) would presume that a person that age in that geography would never in a million years set foot in a place where almost everyone is black, in a celebration of the black community.
I had not said anything to her or acknowledged her in any way – I think this is important, because I want to be clear that the very first thing that a perfect stranger said to me was not “hello” or “Hot out here, isn’t it?,” but: “Why do all these colored people shave their heads?” (Pause for spit-take.)
What I said was, “It’s just the style.” But what I was thinking was, “What? What the hell do you care what someone else does with his/her hair? Is seeing men with short hair somehow unfamiliar to you? Did you not catch all the women (and some men) with long hair? Why do you put your hair in pin-curls and a hairnet? And, again, why do you care what other people do with their hair???”
But what really bugged me to the point that I’m still thinking about it days later is why she felt comfortable saying this to me, and not the dozens of other people within earshot. Oh, right, I was the only other white person. I guess she figured I’d be safe.
It reminded me of a co-worker I knew several years ago who’d routinely spout off about the “n****s” at her daughter’s school – out loud, where anyone could hear her. One day I realized that, if I didn’t respond with something less subtle than silence and a shocked look, she’d assume I was on her same page. So, the next time I worked with her and she went off with her usual racism, I said, “You know, if you use words like that, people might assume you’re ignorant.” She agreed, and she never said anything else like that around me at least.
I kind of feel like it’s my responsibility as a white person to let other white people know that this sh*t is not cool. I’m a Southerner, proud of my heritage, which includes everyone from Confederate soldiers to abolitionists to sharecroppers to race car drivers. But… I live in 2009. And in 2009 I cross lines to small-town fairs and churches and steamy dirt tracks, to amateur firing ranges and backwoods keg parties. And that sh*t is never, ever cool.
I kind of feel a little bit sorry for the bigots who assume that, because I know where Dale Jr. sits in the points, I’ve got a white hood in my closet. Them I can handle – they’re losing and they know it. (The other side of bigotry – those “progressives” who hear my accent and automatically deduct 50 IQ points – them I still fight. But it’s no thing. Other people may have trouble reconciling the fact that I went to Juneteenth on Saturday and watched the race on Sunday and then went to my professional job on Monday, but I don’t. I know all the words to “Redneck Woman,” and I know all the words to “We Shall Overcome,” and nobody will ever convince me that any of that is wrong.)
Still, I feel like my response to the woman at the Juneteenth celebration was lacking. But what could I have done differently? I would’ve loved to have gone off on her and her ignorance, but I don’t think it would’ve fixed anything about the way she thought. But by not going off on her, I feel like I’m complicit in her racism. I don’t know… anybody have any thoughts on this?
I had not said anything to her or acknowledged her in any way – I think this is important, because I want to be clear that the very first thing that a perfect stranger said to me was not “hello” or “Hot out here, isn’t it?,” but: “Why do all these colored people shave their heads?” (Pause for spit-take.)
What I said was, “It’s just the style.” But what I was thinking was, “What? What the hell do you care what someone else does with his/her hair? Is seeing men with short hair somehow unfamiliar to you? Did you not catch all the women (and some men) with long hair? Why do you put your hair in pin-curls and a hairnet? And, again, why do you care what other people do with their hair???”
But what really bugged me to the point that I’m still thinking about it days later is why she felt comfortable saying this to me, and not the dozens of other people within earshot. Oh, right, I was the only other white person. I guess she figured I’d be safe.
It reminded me of a co-worker I knew several years ago who’d routinely spout off about the “n****s” at her daughter’s school – out loud, where anyone could hear her. One day I realized that, if I didn’t respond with something less subtle than silence and a shocked look, she’d assume I was on her same page. So, the next time I worked with her and she went off with her usual racism, I said, “You know, if you use words like that, people might assume you’re ignorant.” She agreed, and she never said anything else like that around me at least.
I kind of feel like it’s my responsibility as a white person to let other white people know that this sh*t is not cool. I’m a Southerner, proud of my heritage, which includes everyone from Confederate soldiers to abolitionists to sharecroppers to race car drivers. But… I live in 2009. And in 2009 I cross lines to small-town fairs and churches and steamy dirt tracks, to amateur firing ranges and backwoods keg parties. And that sh*t is never, ever cool.
I kind of feel a little bit sorry for the bigots who assume that, because I know where Dale Jr. sits in the points, I’ve got a white hood in my closet. Them I can handle – they’re losing and they know it. (The other side of bigotry – those “progressives” who hear my accent and automatically deduct 50 IQ points – them I still fight. But it’s no thing. Other people may have trouble reconciling the fact that I went to Juneteenth on Saturday and watched the race on Sunday and then went to my professional job on Monday, but I don’t. I know all the words to “Redneck Woman,” and I know all the words to “We Shall Overcome,” and nobody will ever convince me that any of that is wrong.)
Still, I feel like my response to the woman at the Juneteenth celebration was lacking. But what could I have done differently? I would’ve loved to have gone off on her and her ignorance, but I don’t think it would’ve fixed anything about the way she thought. But by not going off on her, I feel like I’m complicit in her racism. I don’t know… anybody have any thoughts on this?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Let's do this thing!
So Pat Buchanan appeared at a conference over the weekend which advocated for making English the official language of the U.S. As ThinkProgress and Feministing pointed out, they misspelled their own banner.
You know, I think Buchanan might be on to something. Never mind the fact that the people who wrote our country's system of government basically from scratch (rich white men, all) didn't feel the need to make English our official language. Let's do this thing! I'm totally down with making speaking and writing correct English a federal law, punishable by massive fines if not obeyed.
For starters, we need to settle on what "English" means. The English they speak in Great Britain is very different from the English we speak here (go to London and order a biscuit with a napkin if you don't believe me). For that matter, the English they speak in NYC or Philly is a world apart from the English I speak in Piedmont North Carolina. "Hoagie" vs. "sub" vs. "grinder"? "Bubbler"? Good Heavens, don't get us started on the meaning of "barbecue." (For the record, though we may disagree on proper ingredients, it is a noun, not a verb!) Can I still have my "yonder" and "y'all" and "fixin' to"? Will we put dialect to popular vote like Prop. 8?
And then there's the newspapers. AP Style vs. Chicago Manual vs. Miss Draughn's 12th grade English class, all with different standards of capitalization and commas.
Anyway, let's stipulate that we reach consensus on all that. I want to hear about the fines. I want to know how much I will be charged as a Web blog commenter when I type "OMGROTFL." I want to know how soon the greasy spoon diner near my parents' house that sells "combo's with french frie's" will be put out of business. What about "it's" when the writer means "its"? "Their"/"they're"/"there"? Oh, we could pay off the national debt with this!
And can we shoot the "ain't"-ers and double-negative users on sight?
Seriously, this is just one more thing that certain conservatives are using to identify voters who might potentially be sucked into their (not "they're") racist/ethnocentric cause. They have no intention of establishing English as this country's official language. If they managed to do so, they'd (contraction of "they would") be like the proverbial dog chasing a car. All Buchanan and the other white supremacists want to do is convince you, the working class white person, that having to press 1 for English is an intolerable imposition on your rightful privilege so you'll vote with them next time.
Puh-leeze. (That would be poetic license used to impart my derision of the English-only crowd.)
You know, I think Buchanan might be on to something. Never mind the fact that the people who wrote our country's system of government basically from scratch (rich white men, all) didn't feel the need to make English our official language. Let's do this thing! I'm totally down with making speaking and writing correct English a federal law, punishable by massive fines if not obeyed.
For starters, we need to settle on what "English" means. The English they speak in Great Britain is very different from the English we speak here (go to London and order a biscuit with a napkin if you don't believe me). For that matter, the English they speak in NYC or Philly is a world apart from the English I speak in Piedmont North Carolina. "Hoagie" vs. "sub" vs. "grinder"? "Bubbler"? Good Heavens, don't get us started on the meaning of "barbecue." (For the record, though we may disagree on proper ingredients, it is a noun, not a verb!) Can I still have my "yonder" and "y'all" and "fixin' to"? Will we put dialect to popular vote like Prop. 8?
And then there's the newspapers. AP Style vs. Chicago Manual vs. Miss Draughn's 12th grade English class, all with different standards of capitalization and commas.
Anyway, let's stipulate that we reach consensus on all that. I want to hear about the fines. I want to know how much I will be charged as a Web blog commenter when I type "OMGROTFL." I want to know how soon the greasy spoon diner near my parents' house that sells "combo's with french frie's" will be put out of business. What about "it's" when the writer means "its"? "Their"/"they're"/"there"? Oh, we could pay off the national debt with this!
And can we shoot the "ain't"-ers and double-negative users on sight?
Seriously, this is just one more thing that certain conservatives are using to identify voters who might potentially be sucked into their (not "they're") racist/ethnocentric cause. They have no intention of establishing English as this country's official language. If they managed to do so, they'd (contraction of "they would") be like the proverbial dog chasing a car. All Buchanan and the other white supremacists want to do is convince you, the working class white person, that having to press 1 for English is an intolerable imposition on your rightful privilege so you'll vote with them next time.
Puh-leeze. (That would be poetic license used to impart my derision of the English-only crowd.)
Final thoughts on Sanford (unless something else comes out...)
Oh, dear. You know, I have a long-standing belief (going back to Clinton-Lewinsky more than 10 years ago) that I really don't care what an elected official does on his or her own time as long as it doesn't affect the job I as a voter have hired him/her to do. So if, say, for instance, a governor were to cheat on his wife, I would consider that a douchebag thing to do. I would scrutinize him or her more closely when it came to other ethical matters. I would be disgusted. (I still wash the hand with which I shook John Edwards' hand multiple times a day.) But I wouldn't demand that he/she resign from office.
But there's a question of hypocrisy. Members (almost all men) from every political party have committed adultery in or out of office - John Ensign, Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Strom Thurmond, Elliot Spitzer, David Vitter, Larry Craig, that guy who resigned as House speaker during the Clinton impeachment hearings because his own affair came out, etc. And those are just the ones we know about.
But it's not the liberals who presume to legislate "Biblical" values and who then go f*ck women who are not their wives. It's not the liberals who bray about the sanctity of "traditional marriage" and "family values" and then fly to another country to f*ck another woman on frakking Father's Day (when this liberal was having dinner with her family).
I watched Gov. Sanford's press conference today, and it was just sad. The man is obviously torn up about what he did, and I sincerely hope that he and his family can heal. It's a devastating thing, and I'm praying for all of them.
I also hope that, if and when Sanford returns to public policy, that he can exercise a little humility. For instance, he never again gets to vote to hang the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, or to rail against same-sex marriage.
See to your own house, Gov. Sanford, before you butt your nose into anyone else's.
But there's a question of hypocrisy. Members (almost all men) from every political party have committed adultery in or out of office - John Ensign, Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Strom Thurmond, Elliot Spitzer, David Vitter, Larry Craig, that guy who resigned as House speaker during the Clinton impeachment hearings because his own affair came out, etc. And those are just the ones we know about.
But it's not the liberals who presume to legislate "Biblical" values and who then go f*ck women who are not their wives. It's not the liberals who bray about the sanctity of "traditional marriage" and "family values" and then fly to another country to f*ck another woman on frakking Father's Day (when this liberal was having dinner with her family).
I watched Gov. Sanford's press conference today, and it was just sad. The man is obviously torn up about what he did, and I sincerely hope that he and his family can heal. It's a devastating thing, and I'm praying for all of them.
I also hope that, if and when Sanford returns to public policy, that he can exercise a little humility. For instance, he never again gets to vote to hang the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, or to rail against same-sex marriage.
See to your own house, Gov. Sanford, before you butt your nose into anyone else's.
Breaking: Pep will return to Panthers
It's about time. Julius Peppers *finally* signed his one-year contract with the Panthers - at up to $19.1 million in base salary and bonuses, it will make Peppers one of the highest-paid players in the NFL.
He'd better show up, is all I've got to say.
He'd better show up, is all I've got to say.
How Sanford can fix this
Okay, so South Carolina governor Mark Sanford is back, only it turns out that he wasn't hiking on the AT as his aides told the media - he was visiting South America. I say again, this is just weird. It's weird, it's weird, it's weird. And now Sanford and his aides have to fix it. He's got a press conference at 2, which will probably include a lot of this:
Q: WTF?
A: The governor needed some time to himself after a particularly stressful legislative session.
Q: So he left the country? Without telling anyone?
A: Well, that's not accurate. (NOTE: find someone who knew where Sanford was and explain why they didn't share this info.) The governor was reachable the entire time. (NOTE: this'd better be true.)
Q: His wife told us she hadn't seen him since Thursday. Didn't she know where he was?
A: Of course she knew where he was; she was protecting her husband's privacy (NOTE: she needs to apologize for misunderstanding, causing confusion, etc.)
Q: What about your claim that he was hiking on the AT?
A: Governor Sanford initially planned the hiking trip, then changed his plans at the last minute.
Q: So when you told us he was hiking, you weren't lying; you were just clueless.
A: (NOTE: this is where Sanford's PR people earn their paychecks.)
Also, it's very important that the governor's people stress that he's gone on trips by himself before, and that the only reason anyone in the media knew about this trip was because one of his political opponents spread it around to embarass him. They also need to explain exactly how communication with the governor is handled during his trips, since one of the biggest red flags with this sitch is that Sanford flaked off and left the ship of state without a captain. And they need to lay off the "why does anyone care?" stance. People DO care. Sanford needs to acknowledge that he should've been more sensitive/forthcoming/whatever, promise to handle things differently in the future and then move on.
UPDATE: So, the other day when I wrote, "Sanford is either shacked up with an underaged homosexual farm animal, or he's having a nervous breakdown," I wasn't far off. Same rules apply - tell the truth, apologize, move on. Nice knowing you, Mark.
UPDATE II: The State has video of the press conference.
UPDATE III: Screw them, they're too slow - try this one instead. Not only is wife not there - typical for the mea culpa press conference - but this idiot can't correctly pronounce "Appalachian." I expect that from Yankees, but not from a South Carolinian.
Q: WTF?
A: The governor needed some time to himself after a particularly stressful legislative session.
Q: So he left the country? Without telling anyone?
A: Well, that's not accurate. (NOTE: find someone who knew where Sanford was and explain why they didn't share this info.) The governor was reachable the entire time. (NOTE: this'd better be true.)
Q: His wife told us she hadn't seen him since Thursday. Didn't she know where he was?
A: Of course she knew where he was; she was protecting her husband's privacy (NOTE: she needs to apologize for misunderstanding, causing confusion, etc.)
Q: What about your claim that he was hiking on the AT?
A: Governor Sanford initially planned the hiking trip, then changed his plans at the last minute.
Q: So when you told us he was hiking, you weren't lying; you were just clueless.
A: (NOTE: this is where Sanford's PR people earn their paychecks.)
Also, it's very important that the governor's people stress that he's gone on trips by himself before, and that the only reason anyone in the media knew about this trip was because one of his political opponents spread it around to embarass him. They also need to explain exactly how communication with the governor is handled during his trips, since one of the biggest red flags with this sitch is that Sanford flaked off and left the ship of state without a captain. And they need to lay off the "why does anyone care?" stance. People DO care. Sanford needs to acknowledge that he should've been more sensitive/forthcoming/whatever, promise to handle things differently in the future and then move on.
UPDATE: So, the other day when I wrote, "Sanford is either shacked up with an underaged homosexual farm animal, or he's having a nervous breakdown," I wasn't far off. Same rules apply - tell the truth, apologize, move on. Nice knowing you, Mark.
UPDATE II: The State has video of the press conference.
UPDATE III: Screw them, they're too slow - try this one instead. Not only is wife not there - typical for the mea culpa press conference - but this idiot can't correctly pronounce "Appalachian." I expect that from Yankees, but not from a South Carolinian.
Monday, June 22, 2009
I'm sorry, this is weird
So Mark Sanford, the South Carolina governor previously known for his bombast re: the Obama stimulus bill, has been incommunicado since last Thursday.
His wife says she doesn't know where he is. His aides say he's somewhere hiking on the AT.
I'm sorry, this is weird. Dude is a frakking *governor.* When you're the chief executive of a state with double-digit unemployment, you don't get to f*ck off the woods for a long weekend. Hell, even I don't get to do that. And BTW, it's like 90 degrees here. I can think of better times to go hiking. Seriously, the president of the college where I work doesn't get to disappear for half an hour, let alone days at a time. No one with that level of authority does.
I call BS. Sanford is either shacked up with an underaged homosexual farm animal, or he's having a nervous breakdown.
Don't drop this, media.
His wife says she doesn't know where he is. His aides say he's somewhere hiking on the AT.
I'm sorry, this is weird. Dude is a frakking *governor.* When you're the chief executive of a state with double-digit unemployment, you don't get to f*ck off the woods for a long weekend. Hell, even I don't get to do that. And BTW, it's like 90 degrees here. I can think of better times to go hiking. Seriously, the president of the college where I work doesn't get to disappear for half an hour, let alone days at a time. No one with that level of authority does.
I call BS. Sanford is either shacked up with an underaged homosexual farm animal, or he's having a nervous breakdown.
Don't drop this, media.
"But with life itself"
Andrew Sullivan has excellent coverage of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Iran as the government apparently cracks down with extreme violence against demonstrators.
Today at work I watched the video clip, much circulated online, of the woman apparently killed over the weekend. Reports say that Neda was watching a demonstration with her father when she was shot. Warning: this video clip is extremely graphic and disturbing.
Strangely, this reminded me of a postcard my mother bought me on a trip to Great Britain a few years ago, which contained a quote from the Declaration of Arbroath, a sort of declaration of Scottish independence sent in 1320 to the Pope. Some of my very distant ancestors signed that declaration, and later fought repeated wars for independence in Scotland and after coming to America.
In the West (especially in America), we take for granted that we can speak what we wish and associate with whom we wish. The brave demonstrators in Iran should remind all of us that freedom is never granted by the powerful; it must be demanded. And once attained, freedom must be tended as carefully as you'd tend a garden.
"For, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any condition be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, not for riches, not honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
Almost 700 years ago, my ancestors wrote these words. They were fighting England, but the same sentiment holds true for the people in Iran today. The powers-that-be may murder hundreds of Nedas, but they'll have a much harder time erasing the memory and meaning of what's been happening there for the last 10 days.
Today at work I watched the video clip, much circulated online, of the woman apparently killed over the weekend. Reports say that Neda was watching a demonstration with her father when she was shot. Warning: this video clip is extremely graphic and disturbing.
Strangely, this reminded me of a postcard my mother bought me on a trip to Great Britain a few years ago, which contained a quote from the Declaration of Arbroath, a sort of declaration of Scottish independence sent in 1320 to the Pope. Some of my very distant ancestors signed that declaration, and later fought repeated wars for independence in Scotland and after coming to America.
In the West (especially in America), we take for granted that we can speak what we wish and associate with whom we wish. The brave demonstrators in Iran should remind all of us that freedom is never granted by the powerful; it must be demanded. And once attained, freedom must be tended as carefully as you'd tend a garden.
"For, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any condition be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, not for riches, not honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
Almost 700 years ago, my ancestors wrote these words. They were fighting England, but the same sentiment holds true for the people in Iran today. The powers-that-be may murder hundreds of Nedas, but they'll have a much harder time erasing the memory and meaning of what's been happening there for the last 10 days.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
What Juneteenth means to me
Yesterday was Juneteenth, the day that commemorates the day in 1865 when enslaved people in Galveston, Texas, learned of the Emancipation Proclamation. (I’m betting that they already knew about it, and Lee’s surrender a few months earlier, but that was the first day that enough U.S. troops were around to enforce it.) Slaves in Salem, N.C., a stone’s throw from my front yard, had the same experience only about a month earlier.
Today I went to our local Juneteenth celebration. It was such a joyful gathering of community, with lots of young people performing, and a local African drum band and dancers that I could’ve listened to all day.
Juneteenth means a lot of different things for me. It’s a time to look at where we’ve been, and where we’re going. In my city, we’re still dealing with the legacy of decades of racism in public policy (which I wrote about on Feministing – yes, that’s me on the main page, WOO-HOO!). Whenever I hear someone – usually white, usually politically conservative – complain that African Americans should just quit their bitching and pull themselves up by their boot-straps, I want to scream.
And then I want to point to the oldest African American neighborhood in the state, where freed slaves settled after the war, and where the city built a public housing project in the 60’s. I want to point to another historically black neighborhood just west of downtown, through which the state built an interstate. Why that neighborhood, and not the white neighborhood a few blocks away?, I want to ask. Can we pause for half a second to think critically about these choices? How did that decision to cut a neighborhood in half help turn the place into a slum, reducing the property values enough to make it the perfect spot for a baseball stadium? Can we acknowledge that none of us live in a vacuum, not even the rich folks on the west side with their zoning laws?
At least I live in a city where the minority population is relatively mobilized. What must it be like to live in a place where you don’t have even the smallest bit of clout?
It’s troubling to me that I was one of the only white people at the party today. It boggles my mind that, in 2009, we still have separate places for blacks and whites and Latinos. Yes, I’m sensitive to the needs of any community to celebrate its identity in a safe place, and I don’t want to make it about me. I don’t have the first clue what it’s like to experience Juneteenth as a person of color, because I’m not a person of color. But it’s an event that resonates with me because I believe so strongly that slavery and racism and oppression hurt all of us, and that the end of those things is something that all of us should pray for. How is Juneteenth different from Memorial Day, or July 4th?
I had so much fun today, talking with people and learning so much about a side of my community that I don’t get to see very often. (Except for the one crazy old white lady that apparently wondered in on the wrong bus… That’s a whole ‘nother story.) I wish that I hadn’t been one of the only white people there. Not because I felt awkward – never did, except for when I tried to thread my car between a PT Cruiser and a giant gully – but because it’s healthy to be pushed out of your comfort zone, to get a glimpse of how people “different” from you interact when you’re not around. Because that’s how you learn that the people who are different from you aren’t really as different as you might think.
Today I went to our local Juneteenth celebration. It was such a joyful gathering of community, with lots of young people performing, and a local African drum band and dancers that I could’ve listened to all day.
Juneteenth means a lot of different things for me. It’s a time to look at where we’ve been, and where we’re going. In my city, we’re still dealing with the legacy of decades of racism in public policy (which I wrote about on Feministing – yes, that’s me on the main page, WOO-HOO!). Whenever I hear someone – usually white, usually politically conservative – complain that African Americans should just quit their bitching and pull themselves up by their boot-straps, I want to scream.
And then I want to point to the oldest African American neighborhood in the state, where freed slaves settled after the war, and where the city built a public housing project in the 60’s. I want to point to another historically black neighborhood just west of downtown, through which the state built an interstate. Why that neighborhood, and not the white neighborhood a few blocks away?, I want to ask. Can we pause for half a second to think critically about these choices? How did that decision to cut a neighborhood in half help turn the place into a slum, reducing the property values enough to make it the perfect spot for a baseball stadium? Can we acknowledge that none of us live in a vacuum, not even the rich folks on the west side with their zoning laws?
At least I live in a city where the minority population is relatively mobilized. What must it be like to live in a place where you don’t have even the smallest bit of clout?
It’s troubling to me that I was one of the only white people at the party today. It boggles my mind that, in 2009, we still have separate places for blacks and whites and Latinos. Yes, I’m sensitive to the needs of any community to celebrate its identity in a safe place, and I don’t want to make it about me. I don’t have the first clue what it’s like to experience Juneteenth as a person of color, because I’m not a person of color. But it’s an event that resonates with me because I believe so strongly that slavery and racism and oppression hurt all of us, and that the end of those things is something that all of us should pray for. How is Juneteenth different from Memorial Day, or July 4th?
I had so much fun today, talking with people and learning so much about a side of my community that I don’t get to see very often. (Except for the one crazy old white lady that apparently wondered in on the wrong bus… That’s a whole ‘nother story.) I wish that I hadn’t been one of the only white people there. Not because I felt awkward – never did, except for when I tried to thread my car between a PT Cruiser and a giant gully – but because it’s healthy to be pushed out of your comfort zone, to get a glimpse of how people “different” from you interact when you’re not around. Because that’s how you learn that the people who are different from you aren’t really as different as you might think.
Remember Iran
Sometime last fall, I had a conversation with a friend who was concerned that then-candidate Obama was talking too much about the potential threat to America from Pakistan, and not enough about Iran. Pakistan, after all, was a U.S. ally in the "war on terror," whereas Iran was a spoke in the "axis of evil," and they might have nukes. To which I said, well Pakistan *definitely* has nukes, and the whole place is extremely unstable. At least Iran is technically a democracy, with a relatively moderate president in recent memory, and the current anti-West populist president is up for re-election in June.
Well, that election was a week ago, and you can read about the protests over alleged voting fraud in many other places that are more up-to-date than this blog (and you absolutely should do so). But I wanted to draw attention to Christiane Amanpour's report on today's protests in Tehran, which are notable because they come after Iran's supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, publicly expressed support for the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and said the election results were valid.
So, for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to continue to rally and march is what Amanpour called crossing a bright red line - openly challenging the authority of the Ayatollahs. This isn't like in America, where we protest to build momentum for the next election. These people know that, if they lose, they'll face not just continued oppression, but exile or death. (Amanpour's own family fled Iran after the 1979 revolution.)
What's interesting to me is that these same protestors who are risking their lives for their country's freedom are the same people that President Bush called "evil," that John McCain wanted to bomb to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." Before last Friday's elections, those of us who argued for moderation toward Iran were called weak on defense, or appeasers. Too many in our media were concerned with soundbites, rather than with educating Americans on the complexities of Iran's situation, and on foreign relations in general.
Americans get a bad wrap for having short memories. Well, I don't have a short memory. The next time some politician or TV pundit asks you to gloss over the nuances and jump on board with demonizing an entire country with millions of people, remember Iran. Remember all of Iran. Remember the U.S. and British exploitation of the country's resources, remember the Iranian anger that led to the hostage crisis, remember the people who voted in both presidents Khatami and Ahmadinejad. But most of all, remember the people you've seen putting their lives on the line this week.
Some more reading: About four years ago, I saw Iran-born journalist Afshin Molavi speak at the college where I worked at the time, and read his book about contemporary Iran. Salon.com has an interview with him. (Along with a faculty member, I got to take him to dinner - a real delight.) Also, Ahmadinejad has a blog (www.ahmadinejad.ir), which, regretably, is overloaded at the moment.
And can I get a little love for Christiane Amanpour? In an industry where any yahoo with a can of Aquanet can get on the air, Amanpour is consistently insightful and informed. She was part of our speaker series last year, along with her husband, former State Department official James Rubin, and I swear I could've listened to the two of them talk all night. She's a true gift.
Well, that election was a week ago, and you can read about the protests over alleged voting fraud in many other places that are more up-to-date than this blog (and you absolutely should do so). But I wanted to draw attention to Christiane Amanpour's report on today's protests in Tehran, which are notable because they come after Iran's supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, publicly expressed support for the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and said the election results were valid.
So, for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to continue to rally and march is what Amanpour called crossing a bright red line - openly challenging the authority of the Ayatollahs. This isn't like in America, where we protest to build momentum for the next election. These people know that, if they lose, they'll face not just continued oppression, but exile or death. (Amanpour's own family fled Iran after the 1979 revolution.)
What's interesting to me is that these same protestors who are risking their lives for their country's freedom are the same people that President Bush called "evil," that John McCain wanted to bomb to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." Before last Friday's elections, those of us who argued for moderation toward Iran were called weak on defense, or appeasers. Too many in our media were concerned with soundbites, rather than with educating Americans on the complexities of Iran's situation, and on foreign relations in general.
Americans get a bad wrap for having short memories. Well, I don't have a short memory. The next time some politician or TV pundit asks you to gloss over the nuances and jump on board with demonizing an entire country with millions of people, remember Iran. Remember all of Iran. Remember the U.S. and British exploitation of the country's resources, remember the Iranian anger that led to the hostage crisis, remember the people who voted in both presidents Khatami and Ahmadinejad. But most of all, remember the people you've seen putting their lives on the line this week.
Some more reading: About four years ago, I saw Iran-born journalist Afshin Molavi speak at the college where I worked at the time, and read his book about contemporary Iran. Salon.com has an interview with him. (Along with a faculty member, I got to take him to dinner - a real delight.) Also, Ahmadinejad has a blog (www.ahmadinejad.ir), which, regretably, is overloaded at the moment.
And can I get a little love for Christiane Amanpour? In an industry where any yahoo with a can of Aquanet can get on the air, Amanpour is consistently insightful and informed. She was part of our speaker series last year, along with her husband, former State Department official James Rubin, and I swear I could've listened to the two of them talk all night. She's a true gift.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
LettermanSarahPalinYAWN
Why is this not over? Better question... why, after her family was used as a punch line for most of last fall, did Gov. Palin suddenly decide to object to jokes about sex with her children?
Hey, she's a politician, and she's doing what politicians do - keeping their names in the headlines. But wouldn't trumpeting her heavy involvement negotiating the deal between ExxonMobile and TransCanada to build an oil pipeline have been a more positive way to do that? I mean, that's an actual accomplishment that a governor can point to on her resume to show her demonstrated vision and leadership. Instead we've spent the last week dissecting funny. Seriously?
And by the way, Letterman's crack about Palin's "slutty flight attendent" look was far more offensive to me than his stupid (and apparently ill-researched) joke about her daughter.
Hey, she's a politician, and she's doing what politicians do - keeping their names in the headlines. But wouldn't trumpeting her heavy involvement negotiating the deal between ExxonMobile and TransCanada to build an oil pipeline have been a more positive way to do that? I mean, that's an actual accomplishment that a governor can point to on her resume to show her demonstrated vision and leadership. Instead we've spent the last week dissecting funny. Seriously?
And by the way, Letterman's crack about Palin's "slutty flight attendent" look was far more offensive to me than his stupid (and apparently ill-researched) joke about her daughter.
Friday, June 12, 2009
NASCAR suspends crew chief for using racial slur
First I was very happy to see that NASCAR had indefinitely suspended a Nationwide Series crew chief who used an undisclosed racial slur against driver Marc Davis, who is black. Then I read the comments on the article on the Charlotte Observer's Web site, and I got very sad. And frustrated. And angry.
NASCAR fans spend so much time trying to convince non-fans that we're NOT all closet KKK members with Daisy Dukes and three teeth. I can't tell you how relieved I was to see NASCAR come down so hard on this crew chief, especially after it waffled on the harassment lawsuit by a former track official who is a black woman. Finally they get it, I thought. Calling someone a "n-word" is never appropriate, even if the guy did just wreck your driver. Call him other names, challenge him to a shoving match if you must - but using the person's unprivileged status to insult him is hate-speech, pure and simple.
Some of the people who left comments on that post are frakking delusional, no two ways about it. White people are oppressed, really? Why, because it's no longer socially acceptable for us to exert our privilege over others? Because now we have the burden of considering our speech and actions, as others have always had to do for us (lest we lynch them)? Aw, poor us. I think I'm going to go back to my low-interest mortgaged house and pout about it.
Sorry, idiot racist commenters. If I called one of my work colleagues a racist or sexist slur, you'd better believe I'd be out of a job. Why should this case be any different?
I promise that we're not all like this - not all people in the South, in North Carolina, or all racing fans. People like this crew chief and the commenters who defend him are an evil, vocal and - thank goodness - shrinking faction. That's exactly why they're so angry.
NASCAR fans spend so much time trying to convince non-fans that we're NOT all closet KKK members with Daisy Dukes and three teeth. I can't tell you how relieved I was to see NASCAR come down so hard on this crew chief, especially after it waffled on the harassment lawsuit by a former track official who is a black woman. Finally they get it, I thought. Calling someone a "n-word" is never appropriate, even if the guy did just wreck your driver. Call him other names, challenge him to a shoving match if you must - but using the person's unprivileged status to insult him is hate-speech, pure and simple.
Some of the people who left comments on that post are frakking delusional, no two ways about it. White people are oppressed, really? Why, because it's no longer socially acceptable for us to exert our privilege over others? Because now we have the burden of considering our speech and actions, as others have always had to do for us (lest we lynch them)? Aw, poor us. I think I'm going to go back to my low-interest mortgaged house and pout about it.
Sorry, idiot racist commenters. If I called one of my work colleagues a racist or sexist slur, you'd better believe I'd be out of a job. Why should this case be any different?
I promise that we're not all like this - not all people in the South, in North Carolina, or all racing fans. People like this crew chief and the commenters who defend him are an evil, vocal and - thank goodness - shrinking faction. That's exactly why they're so angry.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Schools of Thought
Dave Newton's piece on ESPN.com today reminded me of my undergrad thesis. (Bear with me, I promise I'm going somewhere...) Newton wanted to find out how fans of Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Kyle Busch are different from one another. And, while his study relied on anecdotal evidence (and not the rock-solid analysis of my own thesis), he found some interesting stuff.
Busch's fans tend to be younger, and more of them are men. Jr's fans are more blue-collar, and more loyal despite his slump in wins and finishes. (It's tempting for me to throw in something snarky about how Busch's fans admit liking him because he's immature... but I won't.)
In my senior thesis, I wanted to explore communication within subcultural groups. The subculture I researched was sports fans, particularly NASCAR fans. (Word of advice to students: pick a thesis topic you can actually live with for a year, not something you think will impress people.) One of my sources was a wonderful study that examined the differences between "old school" and "new school" sports fans with respect to marketing. (If you're curious: Aiken, D., Kahle, L., and Sukhdial, A. (2002). Are you old school? A scale for measuring sports fans’ old-school orientation. Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 71-81. Online, PA Research II database, retrieved 4/22/03.)
"New school" fans were more likely to agree with the statement that winning was the primary purpose of a competition, and as such they're more drawn to athletes or teams that are on top. In my family, we have another term for these people. We call them "fair-weather fans," and we spit on them. Seriously, a bandwagonner has got to be one of the lowest forms of life on the planet.
That's if you're an "old school" fan, like me. In my world-view, basing one's support for a team simply on their winning record is borderline sacreligious. It's the opposite of what sports should be about. Of course we want our guy to win, but we're not going to kick him to the curb just because he's losing.
When I did my research just over five years ago, Earnhardt was regarded as the "new school" guy - the symbol of new fans who were all flash and no substance, with no understanding or respect for the sport's heritage. And many of them were. Then they moved on to Kasey Kahne, Carl Edwards, or other young, single, successful drivers. And now it's Busch's turn at the head of the bandwagon.
It's cool. He'll crash the thing soon enough.
Busch's fans tend to be younger, and more of them are men. Jr's fans are more blue-collar, and more loyal despite his slump in wins and finishes. (It's tempting for me to throw in something snarky about how Busch's fans admit liking him because he's immature... but I won't.)
In my senior thesis, I wanted to explore communication within subcultural groups. The subculture I researched was sports fans, particularly NASCAR fans. (Word of advice to students: pick a thesis topic you can actually live with for a year, not something you think will impress people.) One of my sources was a wonderful study that examined the differences between "old school" and "new school" sports fans with respect to marketing. (If you're curious: Aiken, D., Kahle, L., and Sukhdial, A. (2002). Are you old school? A scale for measuring sports fans’ old-school orientation. Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 71-81. Online, PA Research II database, retrieved 4/22/03.)
"New school" fans were more likely to agree with the statement that winning was the primary purpose of a competition, and as such they're more drawn to athletes or teams that are on top. In my family, we have another term for these people. We call them "fair-weather fans," and we spit on them. Seriously, a bandwagonner has got to be one of the lowest forms of life on the planet.
That's if you're an "old school" fan, like me. In my world-view, basing one's support for a team simply on their winning record is borderline sacreligious. It's the opposite of what sports should be about. Of course we want our guy to win, but we're not going to kick him to the curb just because he's losing.
When I did my research just over five years ago, Earnhardt was regarded as the "new school" guy - the symbol of new fans who were all flash and no substance, with no understanding or respect for the sport's heritage. And many of them were. Then they moved on to Kasey Kahne, Carl Edwards, or other young, single, successful drivers. And now it's Busch's turn at the head of the bandwagon.
It's cool. He'll crash the thing soon enough.
Quick Hit: No more money for Mary
It's about time. N.C. State not only released Mary Easley yesterday, it announced that she won't be getting a fat contract buy-out.
The college - alas, no longer getting tuition payments from my little sister - cited its massive budget cuts as the reason for finally cutting loose the former governor's wife, after the chancellor, provost and board chair had already resigned amid the controversy.
The college - alas, no longer getting tuition payments from my little sister - cited its massive budget cuts as the reason for finally cutting loose the former governor's wife, after the chancellor, provost and board chair had already resigned amid the controversy.
This is what I'm talking about
When I say that reproductive rights are about sooooooo much more than access to abortion, this is what I'm talking about.
A Canadian woman - who says she's opposed to abortion, by the way - wants to get her tubes tied following the birth of her second child in October. Her husband agrees that they only want the two kids. But, because she's only 21 years old, her OB-GYN is refusing to do the surgery. Yeah.
WTF? As an unmarried woman in my 20s, I'm used to being infantilized. But surely the right wing can get behind the autonomy of a married college graduate.
You know what? It's entirely possible, even probable, that this woman would one day regret her decision. A lot happens after 21. But how presumptous is it of a doctor to tell her that she doesn't *really* know what she's doing? That he knows best?
Lesson learned. At no point in her life, even married with the requisite children, is a woman capable of making choices that affect the rest of her life.
(via Feministing)
A Canadian woman - who says she's opposed to abortion, by the way - wants to get her tubes tied following the birth of her second child in October. Her husband agrees that they only want the two kids. But, because she's only 21 years old, her OB-GYN is refusing to do the surgery. Yeah.
WTF? As an unmarried woman in my 20s, I'm used to being infantilized. But surely the right wing can get behind the autonomy of a married college graduate.
You know what? It's entirely possible, even probable, that this woman would one day regret her decision. A lot happens after 21. But how presumptous is it of a doctor to tell her that she doesn't *really* know what she's doing? That he knows best?
Lesson learned. At no point in her life, even married with the requisite children, is a woman capable of making choices that affect the rest of her life.
(via Feministing)
Monday, June 8, 2009
In which I incur the Wrath of the Mommies
I turned 29 on Sunday, and I’m still happily single and child-free. I thought I’d have at least a few more years before I got dragged into the dreaded Mommy Wars. But no.
One of the community posters at Feministing wrote last week about issues she encountered while attending a baby shower. Many of the comments tended to sympathize with the writer, suggesting non-conforming, non-commercial ways to celebrate the coming birth of a child. In the spirit of “OMG, I need a drink to get through this!” I left a comment that I freely admit I should have expressed differently. Out of all the anti-commercialized-shower comments, mine was the one that got called out for being “matrophobic” and “sexist”… which is pretty funny if you know me. Kind of like if someone called Sacha Baron Cohen inhibited. (I also got accused of having an abortion.)
It’s ironic that a post about how one reconciles personal beliefs and established cultural ritual brought out some defensiveness about personal choices. I’m truly sorry that at least some commenters felt like those of us who dislike the traditional shower thing were attacking them. And knowing that, for every person who comments, there have to be at least a few dozen who read but don’t comment, that’s potentially a lot of women that I put on the defensive. I am sorry. And I sympathize with them – mommies get a lot of crap in our culture. They’re silly, obsessed with poopies and day-care, and they wear goofy high-waisted jeans. None of that is accurate or fair to women who’ve taken on the thankless job of rearing the continuation of the human race.
But what I would like for the mommies to understand that we never-married, child-free women can get pretty defensive about the cultural stereotypes to which we’re subjected, too. We’re alcoholic sluts who hate children, after all. Let’s start with the word “child-free,” which I understand is a loaded term. It suggests that children are some awful plague to be avoided. I don’t think that… But I also don’t like the connotations behind the word “childless.” I’m not “less” anything. I like my life just fine. And honestly, my future children will probably also be far better off if they wait a few years to come along.
This is what’s happened to me at baby showers I’ve attended in the past: Other than young children, I’m the only one there without kids. There are no men (because why would Dad-to-Be need to concern himself with diapers and onesies?). The conversation inevitably turns to what I call the Gruesome Labor-Story Bonding Ritual, in which the attendees take turns one-upping one another with, well, gruesome labor stories – as if it will really comfort Mom-to-Be to hear all about her co-worker’s 19-hour push. And, of course, any woman who hasn’t had a child (by choice or circumstance) can’t contribute to the conversation and must quietly content herself with her blue- or pink-iced cake square. I feel invisible.
Many mothers would say the same. One of the things that bugs me most about shower culture is its ritualistic transformation of Woman to Mommy, with no identity apart from her child. But, while that’s vaguely disturbing to me, I can absolutely see how the shower ritual is a comfort to some people. That’s why we have rituals in the first place – to mark transitions. And if a traditional shower, complete with gendered gifts and goofy games, is a meaningful way for you to celebrate this momentous new thing in your life, then by all means go for it.
But please don’t judge me for feeling differently. When I have children, my dream shower will go like this: first of all, it will be mixed-gender, preferably with a football game and plenty of beer (non-alcoholic for future-preggers me). During commercials and half-time I will open any presents – hopefully, practical stuff. Screw the cutesie clothes my kid’s just going to barf on anyway – give me diapers and bibs. Hand-me-downs and used items are preferred. My theme will be “stuff that doesn’t show baby barf stains.” There will be no cake squares. The Husband to be Named Later will help with the thank-you cards.
Recently, I went to a shower that I was dreading (given my past experience) and I was pleasantly surprised. It was for one of my oldest friends, who’s due in about a month. I think that the difference was that all but one of the women present hadn’t had kids. (Which meant no Gruesome Labor-Story Ritual. Instead we talked about sex. Much better.) It was truly a celebration of my friend’s milestone. Most of the gifts were things like diapers, lotion, shampoo or diaper bags. The one cheesy game we played was actually pretty subversive: helping Mom-to-Be by writing our own thank-you notes… the funnier, the better. I had fun sending up the conventional thank-you: “Every time the baby has a poopy diaper, I will think of you” – and so did everyone else. And we talked about non-baby stuff.
But the best part was when my friend movingly spoke about the changes happening within her body and soul during her pregnancy. She said that, if she didn’t believe in God already, the biological miracle happening inside her would have made her a believer. Isn’t that what it should be about? A celebration of and support for this life-changing event in her and her husband’s lives, regardless of cake squares?
It’s disappointing that women with children and women without children feel like we have to justify our choices to one another. I don’t feel like mothers are my enemy. (Except for the one who called me a matrophobic sexist on Feministing. She needs to never talk to me again.) Just as women should be able to choose when to have children, they should be able to choose how. I’m not going to condescend to asking an expectant mother whether she’s thought through the cultural implications of her all-pink baby shower, because it’s really none of my frakking business. Goodness knows that mothers have enough societal judgment to deal with.
In return, I’d like to ask that the Mommies cut me a little slack. I’m not a mommy-hater, I’m not a baby-hater. And though I haven’t been through a 19-hour labor, I’m still perfectly capable of understanding on a small level what they’re going through.
One of the community posters at Feministing wrote last week about issues she encountered while attending a baby shower. Many of the comments tended to sympathize with the writer, suggesting non-conforming, non-commercial ways to celebrate the coming birth of a child. In the spirit of “OMG, I need a drink to get through this!” I left a comment that I freely admit I should have expressed differently. Out of all the anti-commercialized-shower comments, mine was the one that got called out for being “matrophobic” and “sexist”… which is pretty funny if you know me. Kind of like if someone called Sacha Baron Cohen inhibited. (I also got accused of having an abortion.)
It’s ironic that a post about how one reconciles personal beliefs and established cultural ritual brought out some defensiveness about personal choices. I’m truly sorry that at least some commenters felt like those of us who dislike the traditional shower thing were attacking them. And knowing that, for every person who comments, there have to be at least a few dozen who read but don’t comment, that’s potentially a lot of women that I put on the defensive. I am sorry. And I sympathize with them – mommies get a lot of crap in our culture. They’re silly, obsessed with poopies and day-care, and they wear goofy high-waisted jeans. None of that is accurate or fair to women who’ve taken on the thankless job of rearing the continuation of the human race.
But what I would like for the mommies to understand that we never-married, child-free women can get pretty defensive about the cultural stereotypes to which we’re subjected, too. We’re alcoholic sluts who hate children, after all. Let’s start with the word “child-free,” which I understand is a loaded term. It suggests that children are some awful plague to be avoided. I don’t think that… But I also don’t like the connotations behind the word “childless.” I’m not “less” anything. I like my life just fine. And honestly, my future children will probably also be far better off if they wait a few years to come along.
This is what’s happened to me at baby showers I’ve attended in the past: Other than young children, I’m the only one there without kids. There are no men (because why would Dad-to-Be need to concern himself with diapers and onesies?). The conversation inevitably turns to what I call the Gruesome Labor-Story Bonding Ritual, in which the attendees take turns one-upping one another with, well, gruesome labor stories – as if it will really comfort Mom-to-Be to hear all about her co-worker’s 19-hour push. And, of course, any woman who hasn’t had a child (by choice or circumstance) can’t contribute to the conversation and must quietly content herself with her blue- or pink-iced cake square. I feel invisible.
Many mothers would say the same. One of the things that bugs me most about shower culture is its ritualistic transformation of Woman to Mommy, with no identity apart from her child. But, while that’s vaguely disturbing to me, I can absolutely see how the shower ritual is a comfort to some people. That’s why we have rituals in the first place – to mark transitions. And if a traditional shower, complete with gendered gifts and goofy games, is a meaningful way for you to celebrate this momentous new thing in your life, then by all means go for it.
But please don’t judge me for feeling differently. When I have children, my dream shower will go like this: first of all, it will be mixed-gender, preferably with a football game and plenty of beer (non-alcoholic for future-preggers me). During commercials and half-time I will open any presents – hopefully, practical stuff. Screw the cutesie clothes my kid’s just going to barf on anyway – give me diapers and bibs. Hand-me-downs and used items are preferred. My theme will be “stuff that doesn’t show baby barf stains.” There will be no cake squares. The Husband to be Named Later will help with the thank-you cards.
Recently, I went to a shower that I was dreading (given my past experience) and I was pleasantly surprised. It was for one of my oldest friends, who’s due in about a month. I think that the difference was that all but one of the women present hadn’t had kids. (Which meant no Gruesome Labor-Story Ritual. Instead we talked about sex. Much better.) It was truly a celebration of my friend’s milestone. Most of the gifts were things like diapers, lotion, shampoo or diaper bags. The one cheesy game we played was actually pretty subversive: helping Mom-to-Be by writing our own thank-you notes… the funnier, the better. I had fun sending up the conventional thank-you: “Every time the baby has a poopy diaper, I will think of you” – and so did everyone else. And we talked about non-baby stuff.
But the best part was when my friend movingly spoke about the changes happening within her body and soul during her pregnancy. She said that, if she didn’t believe in God already, the biological miracle happening inside her would have made her a believer. Isn’t that what it should be about? A celebration of and support for this life-changing event in her and her husband’s lives, regardless of cake squares?
It’s disappointing that women with children and women without children feel like we have to justify our choices to one another. I don’t feel like mothers are my enemy. (Except for the one who called me a matrophobic sexist on Feministing. She needs to never talk to me again.) Just as women should be able to choose when to have children, they should be able to choose how. I’m not going to condescend to asking an expectant mother whether she’s thought through the cultural implications of her all-pink baby shower, because it’s really none of my frakking business. Goodness knows that mothers have enough societal judgment to deal with.
In return, I’d like to ask that the Mommies cut me a little slack. I’m not a mommy-hater, I’m not a baby-hater. And though I haven’t been through a 19-hour labor, I’m still perfectly capable of understanding on a small level what they’re going through.
Woo-hoo!
This made me gasp a little when I read it just now. (It was a happy gasp.) Katee Sackhoff, who played Starbuck on the recently departed "Battlestar Galactica," has just signed on to the next season of "24!" Yes, one of my favorite actors (on whom I have a total girl-crush) on one of my favorite shows. Could anything ruin this moment?
Here's more scoop on Sackhoff's character...She's in a relationship with fellow agent Davis Cole (played by the just-cast Freddie Prinze. Jr.)...
Ah. Well, the moment was nice while it lasted.
Here's more scoop on Sackhoff's character...She's in a relationship with fellow agent Davis Cole (played by the just-cast Freddie Prinze. Jr.)...
Ah. Well, the moment was nice while it lasted.
Words don't kill people; people kill people
The Southern Poverty Law Center has great piece up on its Web site discussing what role consuming propaganda plays in later acts of violence. They focus on Keith Luke, who shot three Cape Verdean residents of Brockton, Mass., in January, killing two of them. He also repeatedly raped the woman who survived her shooting. At the time of his arrest, Luke said he wanted to kill as many non-white people as he could (he also planned to target a synagogue) before killing himself.
In the six months leading up to his crime spree, Luke frequented several ultra-right wing Web sites, including the white supremacist video-sharing site Podblanc. This article asks four experts on sociology and media to give their thoughts on the long-running debate over whether violent media causes violent acts. Their general consensus is that, while a video game or Web site doesn't brainwash an otherwise impartial person into, say, shooting up a school, a person who's already inclined in a certain direction will be able to sharpen his/her focus by seeking out those with similar views.
It sounds like that's what happened with Keith Luke. He and his mother had lived in the same apartment complex as the shooting victims (though it's not clear whether he knew them). Apparently the town of Brockton's population has grown rapidly since about 1970, including a doubling of the African American population. In fact, it's home to more people of Cape Verdean ancestry than anywhere else in the U.S. - nine percent of the city's total population.
So Luke, who's 22 years old, sees all around him a growing number of people who don't look like him, enough of them so that they can comfortably speak to one another in languages he can't understand. The privilege he's been promised as a white man in America isn't materializing. So he takes his anger and inadequacy to the Web, where he can communicate with like-minded people around the world. They give him the words to go with his feelings, and the confidence to make his fantasy a reality.
This weekend, the Department of Justice announced that it will investigate any ties that Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller, had to the radical anti-abortion community. But, as the SPLC's piece shows, a person doesn't necessarily have to have formal ties with an organization in order to be influenced by its hate language.
So, is the solution to ban all hate-filled, racist propaganda? Sounds great, but who determines what messages cross the line? (I'd hate to see which of my favorite Web sites the Bush Administration would've gladly shut down...) It might be easier for racist wingnuts to find one another nowadays, but it's not like they didn't exist before the Internet. I suppose the only thing to do is to keep speaking, keep teaching, keep existing, until there simply are no more racist wingnuts.
In the six months leading up to his crime spree, Luke frequented several ultra-right wing Web sites, including the white supremacist video-sharing site Podblanc. This article asks four experts on sociology and media to give their thoughts on the long-running debate over whether violent media causes violent acts. Their general consensus is that, while a video game or Web site doesn't brainwash an otherwise impartial person into, say, shooting up a school, a person who's already inclined in a certain direction will be able to sharpen his/her focus by seeking out those with similar views.
It sounds like that's what happened with Keith Luke. He and his mother had lived in the same apartment complex as the shooting victims (though it's not clear whether he knew them). Apparently the town of Brockton's population has grown rapidly since about 1970, including a doubling of the African American population. In fact, it's home to more people of Cape Verdean ancestry than anywhere else in the U.S. - nine percent of the city's total population.
So Luke, who's 22 years old, sees all around him a growing number of people who don't look like him, enough of them so that they can comfortably speak to one another in languages he can't understand. The privilege he's been promised as a white man in America isn't materializing. So he takes his anger and inadequacy to the Web, where he can communicate with like-minded people around the world. They give him the words to go with his feelings, and the confidence to make his fantasy a reality.
This weekend, the Department of Justice announced that it will investigate any ties that Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller, had to the radical anti-abortion community. But, as the SPLC's piece shows, a person doesn't necessarily have to have formal ties with an organization in order to be influenced by its hate language.
So, is the solution to ban all hate-filled, racist propaganda? Sounds great, but who determines what messages cross the line? (I'd hate to see which of my favorite Web sites the Bush Administration would've gladly shut down...) It might be easier for racist wingnuts to find one another nowadays, but it's not like they didn't exist before the Internet. I suppose the only thing to do is to keep speaking, keep teaching, keep existing, until there simply are no more racist wingnuts.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Congrats, Smoke!
Today Tony Stewart won his first race as that endangered species known as the owner-driver. Bonus for me: he did so in a way (on fumes) that enlivened a race that's been a yawner ever since NASCAR changed the rear gear package. Congrats! I'm really happy for the guy.
My only quibble is that Junior fought a non-grippy car all day to a 27th place finish. In honor of my birthday, I had specifically asked Junior to get a top ten. I'm thinking that making this request via fan ESP was a mistake... oh, well, it was still a great b-day.
My only quibble is that Junior fought a non-grippy car all day to a 27th place finish. In honor of my birthday, I had specifically asked Junior to get a top ten. I'm thinking that making this request via fan ESP was a mistake... oh, well, it was still a great b-day.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
First reaction: DUDE
I'm watching Rachel Maddow's coverage of President Obama's speech in the Middle East earlier today. She had the same reactions: DUDE! I can't believe he said that! Did he really SAY that???
Maddow pointed out that, while Obama didn't announce any new policy, the things he brought up and the way he talked about them have potential to re-set the dialogue on the many problems arising in that region. Among what Maddow called the "third rails" Obama grabbed in the speech: disapproving Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories; smacking Palestinian groups for firing random missiles into those settlements; U.S. torture of detainees; Iraq as a "war of choice"; and admitting U.S. involvement in Iran's 1953 coup - which I don't think we've ever admitted. Read the full transcript here.
I anticipate that the criticism of Obama's remarks will come from people angry that he said these things on foreign soil. But what's wrong with meeting your enemy on his turf if nothing else has worked? Acknowledgment is not the same as apology.
It's obviously too soon to tell, but I think this could be a real "Nixon goes to China" moment for this president. But if the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East has taught us anything, it's that we can't assume anything is a done deal.
Maddow pointed out that, while Obama didn't announce any new policy, the things he brought up and the way he talked about them have potential to re-set the dialogue on the many problems arising in that region. Among what Maddow called the "third rails" Obama grabbed in the speech: disapproving Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories; smacking Palestinian groups for firing random missiles into those settlements; U.S. torture of detainees; Iraq as a "war of choice"; and admitting U.S. involvement in Iran's 1953 coup - which I don't think we've ever admitted. Read the full transcript here.
I anticipate that the criticism of Obama's remarks will come from people angry that he said these things on foreign soil. But what's wrong with meeting your enemy on his turf if nothing else has worked? Acknowledgment is not the same as apology.
It's obviously too soon to tell, but I think this could be a real "Nixon goes to China" moment for this president. But if the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East has taught us anything, it's that we can't assume anything is a done deal.
Nope, sorry. I still think Kyle Busch is a d-bag.
There was a moment in last Sunday's race at Dover when someone - I can't remember now who - passed Kyle Busch for the lead, and the crowd starting cheering loud enough that the TV audio picked up the sound. Color commentator Darrel Waltrip, who usually causes me to scream at my TV at least once per race, did not disappoint. He said he didn't understand why the cheer went up, because "nothing happened out on the track." At which point I screamed at my TV, "It's because they hate Kyle Busch! Everybody hates Kyle Busch except for you!"
And apparently ESPN.com's Ed Hinton, too. It was Hinton who asked Busch about Dale Earnhardt Jr's crew chief switch at the pre-race press conference last week, which Busch took as an opportunity to take a swipe at the driver who replaced him at Hendrick. "It's never Junior; it's always the crew chief," Busch said.
I'm not going to get into arguing with Busch about this - I'm an Earnhardt fan, so you can guess where I stand. But I thought Hinton's column on the subject was self-serving horsehit. First we get a dozen paragraphs about Busch's noble post-race routine: sulking and "taking a hike" if he wasn't happy with his finish. Then we get Hinton's take on the Dover press conference, and his lament that "honesty is boring." Then there's this bizarre little paragraph:
Busch spoke the truth as he saw it, and we all wrote it and/or aired sound bites of it, because the media knew that would be much more interesting to you, the public, than a lot of "I couldn't tell you" or "I don't know" from NASCAR's best and most controversial young driver about NASCAR's most popular driver.
Um, Ed? I like you and all, but it's bullshit for you to complain about the media excerpting the most sensational soundbites because YOU ARE THE MEDIA. If you want me, the reader, to get the full picture on Kyle Busch, then stop trying to manipulate him at a press conference. Let him do his thing, report on it, allow me to draw my own conclusions and then leave me the hell alone. You do not get to dictate how I interpret Kyle Busch. You also don't get to create a story where there isn't one.
I'm sure that reporting on sports - as opposed to, say, Congress - involves a constant balance between "informative" and "entertaining," and that can't be easy. But that's why Hinton gets paid the big bucks.
On that note... I truly pity whoever does my job for Busch's team. He's a gifted driver, but still way too immature in his dealings with the press - Exhibit A being how easily he was maneuvered into making a controversial soundbite at Dover, as Hinton outlined in his column. Busch shouldn't be congratulated for speaking his mind; he should be subjected to another 12 hours of media training. There was absolutely no reason for him to go where he did, other than to be a dick.
For an example of how Busch should've responded, watch how Earnhardt handled it when Hinton told him what Busch had said. He, too, was honest, but successfully turned the conversation back to the message he needed to get out. I'm sure that Earnhardt has plenty of choice words for Busch, but he knows better than to share them with the press. It's called being a professional.
Of course the press love it when one driver picks a fight with another. It's instant conflict, which is automatically interesting. I don't know... Has our sport gotten so boring that reporting on the actual competition isn't good enough? It seems like that's a much bigger issue than what that child Kyle Busch thinks of personnel decisions on someone else's team.
And apparently ESPN.com's Ed Hinton, too. It was Hinton who asked Busch about Dale Earnhardt Jr's crew chief switch at the pre-race press conference last week, which Busch took as an opportunity to take a swipe at the driver who replaced him at Hendrick. "It's never Junior; it's always the crew chief," Busch said.
I'm not going to get into arguing with Busch about this - I'm an Earnhardt fan, so you can guess where I stand. But I thought Hinton's column on the subject was self-serving horsehit. First we get a dozen paragraphs about Busch's noble post-race routine: sulking and "taking a hike" if he wasn't happy with his finish. Then we get Hinton's take on the Dover press conference, and his lament that "honesty is boring." Then there's this bizarre little paragraph:
Busch spoke the truth as he saw it, and we all wrote it and/or aired sound bites of it, because the media knew that would be much more interesting to you, the public, than a lot of "I couldn't tell you" or "I don't know" from NASCAR's best and most controversial young driver about NASCAR's most popular driver.
Um, Ed? I like you and all, but it's bullshit for you to complain about the media excerpting the most sensational soundbites because YOU ARE THE MEDIA. If you want me, the reader, to get the full picture on Kyle Busch, then stop trying to manipulate him at a press conference. Let him do his thing, report on it, allow me to draw my own conclusions and then leave me the hell alone. You do not get to dictate how I interpret Kyle Busch. You also don't get to create a story where there isn't one.
I'm sure that reporting on sports - as opposed to, say, Congress - involves a constant balance between "informative" and "entertaining," and that can't be easy. But that's why Hinton gets paid the big bucks.
On that note... I truly pity whoever does my job for Busch's team. He's a gifted driver, but still way too immature in his dealings with the press - Exhibit A being how easily he was maneuvered into making a controversial soundbite at Dover, as Hinton outlined in his column. Busch shouldn't be congratulated for speaking his mind; he should be subjected to another 12 hours of media training. There was absolutely no reason for him to go where he did, other than to be a dick.
For an example of how Busch should've responded, watch how Earnhardt handled it when Hinton told him what Busch had said. He, too, was honest, but successfully turned the conversation back to the message he needed to get out. I'm sure that Earnhardt has plenty of choice words for Busch, but he knows better than to share them with the press. It's called being a professional.
Of course the press love it when one driver picks a fight with another. It's instant conflict, which is automatically interesting. I don't know... Has our sport gotten so boring that reporting on the actual competition isn't good enough? It seems like that's a much bigger issue than what that child Kyle Busch thinks of personnel decisions on someone else's team.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
N.C. GOP dude does NOT have teh gay
I was looking for another article on the News & Record's Web site when I found this: one of the people running for chair of the state Republican party is suing a radio morning show host for defamation. The defaming statement? That the candidate is gay. The candidate says he isn't, and that the host forwarded a letter saying that he is - written by yet another GOP chair hopeful - to 93 county party chairs for distribution.
I have only a working knowledge of media law, and of course libel/slander laws vary from state to state. Basically (with help from the Media Law Resource Center), , defamation is any statement communicated to others that's both false and damaging to the reputation of the person being talked about. It has to be a "statement of fact" - hyperbole and satire don't count (lucky snarkologists like me!) - and has to actually harm the person's reputation, "as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive." For a public figure like a celebrity or a former mayor running for state-wide office, the standard is even higher. They "are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement."
Which brings me to my question... Is calling someone gay the same as telling people the person is a tax cheat, or that he beats his wife, or something else awful? See, I don't see being gay as anything for someone to be ashamed of. And if it's something that could actually keep a person from being elected in 2009, that's pretty sad. And it says a lot about the people doing the electing.
The News & Record reports that "Fetzer wrote to supporters May 22 that 'I am not gay — never have been — never will be. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of the scurrilous allegations made in the anonymous attack on me.'" Scurrilous? Meaning "vulgar or evil"? Really?
Sheesh. No wonder these guys keep losing elections. Crawl on over to the 21st Century, folks.
I have only a working knowledge of media law, and of course libel/slander laws vary from state to state. Basically (with help from the Media Law Resource Center), , defamation is any statement communicated to others that's both false and damaging to the reputation of the person being talked about. It has to be a "statement of fact" - hyperbole and satire don't count (lucky snarkologists like me!) - and has to actually harm the person's reputation, "as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive." For a public figure like a celebrity or a former mayor running for state-wide office, the standard is even higher. They "are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement."
Which brings me to my question... Is calling someone gay the same as telling people the person is a tax cheat, or that he beats his wife, or something else awful? See, I don't see being gay as anything for someone to be ashamed of. And if it's something that could actually keep a person from being elected in 2009, that's pretty sad. And it says a lot about the people doing the electing.
The News & Record reports that "Fetzer wrote to supporters May 22 that 'I am not gay — never have been — never will be. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of the scurrilous allegations made in the anonymous attack on me.'" Scurrilous? Meaning "vulgar or evil"? Really?
Sheesh. No wonder these guys keep losing elections. Crawl on over to the 21st Century, folks.
Again, NOT the way to go about this
More information is coming out about the man who killed an Army recruiter and wounded another in a shooting in Little Rock, Ark., this weekend. According to the case's prosecutor, the suspect told police he wanted to target members of the military out of protest over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just like with the man who murdered George Tiller, I think this is less about the shooter being a true believer and more about an inadequate personality desperate for meaning who latches onto an extremist philosophy so he can "be" somebody. (They would scare me a little less if they didn't have such easy access to guns.)
Plenty of people want the wars to be over, and there are even some who distrust and/or hate anything about the military. But murder is not and never should be an act of protest.
And now a 23-year old soldier who never even left this country is dead. This just makes me sick to my stomach.
Just like with the man who murdered George Tiller, I think this is less about the shooter being a true believer and more about an inadequate personality desperate for meaning who latches onto an extremist philosophy so he can "be" somebody. (They would scare me a little less if they didn't have such easy access to guns.)
Plenty of people want the wars to be over, and there are even some who distrust and/or hate anything about the military. But murder is not and never should be an act of protest.
And now a 23-year old soldier who never even left this country is dead. This just makes me sick to my stomach.
Monday, June 1, 2009
More on the asshole terrorist who murdered George Tiller
Just in case you thought I was being hyperbolicious with the whole "Dr. Tiller's murderer is a terrorist" thing, here's more about him from Talking Points Memo, via Dan Savage:
But Roeder's violent right-wing extremism seems to extend beyond the issue of abortion. In April 1996, amid anxiety over the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Roeder was stopped by police after a motorist reported seeing a car with a license plate reading: "Sovereign -- Private Property -- Immunity Declared at Law --Non Commercial American."
("Sovereign citizens" claim to be unaccountable to the federal government, deriving certain rights under English common law. It's been a favored legal strategy of various violent right-wing extremists, including white supremacists.)
When police searched Roeder's car, they found the makings of a bomb: a blasting cap; two six-volt lantern batteries, one wired with a clothespin and a cigarette wrapper; and a 1-pound can of black gunpowder. In Roeder's home, police found instructions titled "Underground Cookbook: Clothes Pin Time-Delayed Switch."
So, if this ass-hat Roeder had been arrested 10 years ago after, say, murdering a federal agent, we would call him.... What's that word we have for people who commit violent crimes with the aim of achieving political goals? Oh, yeah... TERRORISTS.
But Roeder's violent right-wing extremism seems to extend beyond the issue of abortion. In April 1996, amid anxiety over the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Roeder was stopped by police after a motorist reported seeing a car with a license plate reading: "Sovereign -- Private Property -- Immunity Declared at Law --Non Commercial American."
("Sovereign citizens" claim to be unaccountable to the federal government, deriving certain rights under English common law. It's been a favored legal strategy of various violent right-wing extremists, including white supremacists.)
When police searched Roeder's car, they found the makings of a bomb: a blasting cap; two six-volt lantern batteries, one wired with a clothespin and a cigarette wrapper; and a 1-pound can of black gunpowder. In Roeder's home, police found instructions titled "Underground Cookbook: Clothes Pin Time-Delayed Switch."
So, if this ass-hat Roeder had been arrested 10 years ago after, say, murdering a federal agent, we would call him.... What's that word we have for people who commit violent crimes with the aim of achieving political goals? Oh, yeah... TERRORISTS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)