I found myself nodding and agreeing with just about every word of Thomas Rogers' piece on Salon about the treatment of gay characters in the "Sex and the City" universe, from the condescending match-up of the only two gay male characters ("Hey, you're gay, and he's gay - you have so much in common!") to his opinion of the off-putting Anthony (in my opinion, one of the most unattractive characters in TV history - Rogers calls him "repellent").
Am I the only one who remembers when Charlotte tried to fix up Anthony, her wedding planner, with Carrie's friend Stanford? (It was in the episode where Margaret Cho made Carrie take part in the fashion show, and Carrie tripped on the runway and Heidi Klum just stepped right over her. Also the episode where Cho drops this gay-infantalizing gem. Seriously, the guy doesn't even get to talk!) Anthony and Stanford HATED each other. Stanford thought Anthony was a shallow, obnoxious blowhard, and Anthony dressed Charlotte down for trying to fix him up with someone he thought was less attractive than him. (here, starting at about 3:40.)
It was Anthony who told Charlotte (in so many words) that you can't just pair up your gay friends and expect them to hit it off (since they're human beings, and do not, in fact, exist solely for your amusement or to solve your relationship/fashion dilemmas). Which is why it was so galling when the SATC writers did exactly that - forcing two characters together when it made zero sense.
Of course, these are the same people who just dragged back a Carrie ex whenver they were starved for conflict, so they were kind of over extending themselves creatively at that point... but still.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Rand Paul has the freedom to read a history book, and he should use it ASAP
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to do a story for the college’s magazine about an alum who’d written a book about his time as a state attorney in Florida during the Civil Rights Movement – in particular, the battle to integrate public facilities in St. Augustine in the summer of 1964. It was fascinating to hear a first-hand account from someone who’d been intimately involved with the protests and counter-protests of the SCLC and KKK in America’s oldest city.
One of the SCLC’s targets was a motor lodge with a public pool, neither of which allowed black customers. Another was St. Augustine’s public beach, where police literally chased black children out of the ocean during their “swim-ins”. The people who tried to physically integrate these places weren’t just kicked out; they were jailed for trespass, even shot at in their homes and churches.
The period of the Civil Rights Movement is full of stories like this. These incidents – which didn’t take place that long ago – are a big part of the reason that I could never be a libertarian in the mold of Rand Paul.
Paul (son of Rep. Ron Paul) has had an eventful week. He won the Kentucky Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, gave an interview to NPR where he vacillated on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and has now spent the rest of the week explaining that, while he “abhors” racism and probably would’ve voted for the law, he disagrees in principle with federal laws (also including the Americans with Disabilities Act) that tell privately owned businesses what to do. (I’m sure it was taxing, but wussing out on “Meet the Press” is just silly.)
Paul’s libertarianism has its appeal. But the “vote with your dollars” argument only works for people who HAVE the dollars, not to mention the freedom to use them without having to worry about the Klan fire-bombing their home. I don’t think Paul is a racist, but I do think he’s in desperate need of a history lesson.
The Civil Rights Act – debated, endlessly filibustered and finally passed during the same summer that the St. Augustine police were keeping the world safe for all-white swimming pools – has as its legal basis the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. If you’re the owner of a hotel, gas station, restaurant or any other business serving people traveling for business, then you can’t discriminate. (Well, you can, but there’s now a legal basis to sue you.) In other words, it’s an infringement on the federal government’s right to guarantee safe interstate travel if everyone can’t find a place to stay, eat, pee, etc.
This is probably not something you think is an issue if you’re not one of those people who, because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., ever has to worry about finding a place that will welcome you. But it was a very real concern for African Americans (ever hear of sundown towns?), and unfortunately still IS an issue for too many people. (And Sen. Lindsey Graham agrees with me!)
The libertarian fantasy world aside, there is no such thing as a totally private business. Did you get a loan to start your restaurant? Do you get tax credits for your business? If it catches on fire, do you put it out with your own water hose (which is of course fed by the well that you dug with your own two hands)? Is your restaurant’s safety enforced by local police? (The sheriff in St. Augustine in the 60s was a member of the Klan, which I’m sure had no impact whatsoever on how black travelers “trespassing” in an all-white restaurant were treated.)
The Civil Rights Act may have been primarily concerned with racial discrimination, but there’s no doubt that it helps all of us. With no Civil Rights Act, and no later laws built on its precedent, what’s to stop a bank from refusing me a mortgage loan because I’m a woman, or not extending student loans to women or minorities? You can’t pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you can’t afford boots.
Or, as Sen. John Kyl put it: “I hope [Paul] can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”
One of the SCLC’s targets was a motor lodge with a public pool, neither of which allowed black customers. Another was St. Augustine’s public beach, where police literally chased black children out of the ocean during their “swim-ins”. The people who tried to physically integrate these places weren’t just kicked out; they were jailed for trespass, even shot at in their homes and churches.
The period of the Civil Rights Movement is full of stories like this. These incidents – which didn’t take place that long ago – are a big part of the reason that I could never be a libertarian in the mold of Rand Paul.
Paul (son of Rep. Ron Paul) has had an eventful week. He won the Kentucky Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, gave an interview to NPR where he vacillated on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and has now spent the rest of the week explaining that, while he “abhors” racism and probably would’ve voted for the law, he disagrees in principle with federal laws (also including the Americans with Disabilities Act) that tell privately owned businesses what to do. (I’m sure it was taxing, but wussing out on “Meet the Press” is just silly.)
Paul’s libertarianism has its appeal. But the “vote with your dollars” argument only works for people who HAVE the dollars, not to mention the freedom to use them without having to worry about the Klan fire-bombing their home. I don’t think Paul is a racist, but I do think he’s in desperate need of a history lesson.
The Civil Rights Act – debated, endlessly filibustered and finally passed during the same summer that the St. Augustine police were keeping the world safe for all-white swimming pools – has as its legal basis the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. If you’re the owner of a hotel, gas station, restaurant or any other business serving people traveling for business, then you can’t discriminate. (Well, you can, but there’s now a legal basis to sue you.) In other words, it’s an infringement on the federal government’s right to guarantee safe interstate travel if everyone can’t find a place to stay, eat, pee, etc.
This is probably not something you think is an issue if you’re not one of those people who, because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., ever has to worry about finding a place that will welcome you. But it was a very real concern for African Americans (ever hear of sundown towns?), and unfortunately still IS an issue for too many people. (And Sen. Lindsey Graham agrees with me!)
The libertarian fantasy world aside, there is no such thing as a totally private business. Did you get a loan to start your restaurant? Do you get tax credits for your business? If it catches on fire, do you put it out with your own water hose (which is of course fed by the well that you dug with your own two hands)? Is your restaurant’s safety enforced by local police? (The sheriff in St. Augustine in the 60s was a member of the Klan, which I’m sure had no impact whatsoever on how black travelers “trespassing” in an all-white restaurant were treated.)
The Civil Rights Act may have been primarily concerned with racial discrimination, but there’s no doubt that it helps all of us. With no Civil Rights Act, and no later laws built on its precedent, what’s to stop a bank from refusing me a mortgage loan because I’m a woman, or not extending student loans to women or minorities? You can’t pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you can’t afford boots.
Or, as Sen. John Kyl put it: “I hope [Paul] can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
... And yet, I still shave my legs
It’s graduating time! My alma mater will celebrate its commencement this weekend, a time that never fails to remind me of the day I lined up to troupe down the insanely steep path into the May Dell to get my own diploma (something I wasn’t sure I’d ever get to accomplish!). It was, to date, the happiest day of my life. Having gone through a bit of an odyssey in college (six schools in five and a half years), I know without a doubt that the place I finished my degree was exactly the right community for me.
I completed my final two years and graduated from Salem College – which, if you didn’t already know, is the oldest women’s college in the country by founding date (1772). When I tell people that I went there, I always seem to get the same question: “What was it like to go to a girls’ school?” To answer: I don’t know, because I didn’t go to a “girls’ school;” I went to a women’s college.
It also seems like I frequently have to defend my choice to go to Salem, and by extension the very existence of women’s colleges in the 21st century. (And I’m not the only one.) So, now that most colleges and universities are coed, why do we still need women’s colleges? Hell, I don’t know. Why do we still need Jesuit colleges? HBCUs? Arts conservatories? Giant public universities? Tiny private colleges?
As long as people will look for different things in their college experiences, we’ll need a variety of different types of colleges for those people. And as long as some students – for reasons particular to each of them – thrive in women’s colleges and prefer them, we’ll need Salem, Meredith, Wellesley, etc.
I think most people would agree with that… which makes me wonder if the real question isn’t “why do we still need women’s colleges?” but “why would someone choose a women’s college?” And that’s a question that I don’t see the students who choose the Jesuit colleges or HBCUs or arts conservatories, etc., having to answer.
There’s something that freaks people out about a student who would voluntarily choose a single-sex environment. She must be a lesbian, or be afraid of interacting with men. (Which is a joke – first of all, I guarantee that there are more gay women at Carolina right now than at Salem, and second, a women’s college isn’t exactly cloistered. Half the faculty at Salem were men when I was there, and both adult male students and men attending other local colleges could take classes there.) Maybe some people are afraid that students at women’s colleges will be brainwashed (by hormones or something?) into radical feminism (ZOMG! SCARY!!!). More likely? All of the above are bogey-men thrown in the faces of the women who choose to attend these colleges.
I can’t speak for every one of my classmates, but I chose Salem because it offered the best bachelor’s program in my field (communication) and the most convenience for a working adult student of any other college in my area. In terms of what I was expecting, I was a lot more worried about the class/privilege of the students I’d be with than about almost all of them being women. I was convinced that I’d be the only one there who didn’t own pearls. (Another misconception – when I was there, the student body was incredibly diverse in every way.)
And, while I hate the argument that students at women’s colleges succeed because they’re sheltered from men and their apparent distractions… I found it so much easier to focus on my own academic success at Salem than at any point in my college career. Some of that was undoubtedly a maturing on my part (I was 22 when I transferred there), and some of that was due to the greater personal attention that you typically find at any small college. But I can’t ignore the influence of my professors and classmates, whose incredibly high standards pushed me to be better. As another Salem alum once told me, college was the first time she knew that people saw her as a person first, and a woman second.
Women’s colleges are profoundly empowering for some. Giant public universities are just as empowering for others. Maybe instead of fretting and politicizing college choice, or trying to demonize it (“Everyone will think you don’t shave your legs!!!”), we should just let people find the place that’s the right fit for them.
(Unless you want me to get snarky, which I'm totally willing to do.
"What was it like to go to Giant Tech? Didn't you have, like, 800 people in every class? Why did you want to do that? Are you afraid of being called on or something? Did you have, like, 12 roommates?"
"You went to MIT? Wow, I didn't know you had Asberger's."
"Julliard? Wow, no wonder you can't balance your checkbook."
Stupid? Yes. Offensive? Sure. Also, sh*t that graduates of women's colleges get ALL THE TIME.)
I completed my final two years and graduated from Salem College – which, if you didn’t already know, is the oldest women’s college in the country by founding date (1772). When I tell people that I went there, I always seem to get the same question: “What was it like to go to a girls’ school?” To answer: I don’t know, because I didn’t go to a “girls’ school;” I went to a women’s college.
It also seems like I frequently have to defend my choice to go to Salem, and by extension the very existence of women’s colleges in the 21st century. (And I’m not the only one.) So, now that most colleges and universities are coed, why do we still need women’s colleges? Hell, I don’t know. Why do we still need Jesuit colleges? HBCUs? Arts conservatories? Giant public universities? Tiny private colleges?
As long as people will look for different things in their college experiences, we’ll need a variety of different types of colleges for those people. And as long as some students – for reasons particular to each of them – thrive in women’s colleges and prefer them, we’ll need Salem, Meredith, Wellesley, etc.
I think most people would agree with that… which makes me wonder if the real question isn’t “why do we still need women’s colleges?” but “why would someone choose a women’s college?” And that’s a question that I don’t see the students who choose the Jesuit colleges or HBCUs or arts conservatories, etc., having to answer.
There’s something that freaks people out about a student who would voluntarily choose a single-sex environment. She must be a lesbian, or be afraid of interacting with men. (Which is a joke – first of all, I guarantee that there are more gay women at Carolina right now than at Salem, and second, a women’s college isn’t exactly cloistered. Half the faculty at Salem were men when I was there, and both adult male students and men attending other local colleges could take classes there.) Maybe some people are afraid that students at women’s colleges will be brainwashed (by hormones or something?) into radical feminism (ZOMG! SCARY!!!). More likely? All of the above are bogey-men thrown in the faces of the women who choose to attend these colleges.
I can’t speak for every one of my classmates, but I chose Salem because it offered the best bachelor’s program in my field (communication) and the most convenience for a working adult student of any other college in my area. In terms of what I was expecting, I was a lot more worried about the class/privilege of the students I’d be with than about almost all of them being women. I was convinced that I’d be the only one there who didn’t own pearls. (Another misconception – when I was there, the student body was incredibly diverse in every way.)
And, while I hate the argument that students at women’s colleges succeed because they’re sheltered from men and their apparent distractions… I found it so much easier to focus on my own academic success at Salem than at any point in my college career. Some of that was undoubtedly a maturing on my part (I was 22 when I transferred there), and some of that was due to the greater personal attention that you typically find at any small college. But I can’t ignore the influence of my professors and classmates, whose incredibly high standards pushed me to be better. As another Salem alum once told me, college was the first time she knew that people saw her as a person first, and a woman second.
Women’s colleges are profoundly empowering for some. Giant public universities are just as empowering for others. Maybe instead of fretting and politicizing college choice, or trying to demonize it (“Everyone will think you don’t shave your legs!!!”), we should just let people find the place that’s the right fit for them.
(Unless you want me to get snarky, which I'm totally willing to do.
"What was it like to go to Giant Tech? Didn't you have, like, 800 people in every class? Why did you want to do that? Are you afraid of being called on or something? Did you have, like, 12 roommates?"
"You went to MIT? Wow, I didn't know you had Asberger's."
"Julliard? Wow, no wonder you can't balance your checkbook."
Stupid? Yes. Offensive? Sure. Also, sh*t that graduates of women's colleges get ALL THE TIME.)
The Times' heart is broken and it will never love anyone ever again
Does it seem to anyone else that this headline from the New York Times has a vaguely, I dunno, wounded vibe to it?
"Obama Turns His Back on the Press."
*sniffle*
And he never calls me anymore, either!
"Obama Turns His Back on the Press."
*sniffle*
And he never calls me anymore, either!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Ignorance is domestic bliss
Hoo, boy. I just found Taryn Cox’s The WIFE blog, through which the self-described “well-travelled domestic expert” says she wants to “reawaken the soul and romanticism of ‘The Wife.’” I confess that I couldn’t actually read much of the blog because I couldn’t get past the fact that a) Cox is 26 years old, so – no offense – but wtf does she know?, and b) the “domestic expert” can’t correctly spell either “June Cleaver” or “stationery.”
Here’s the thing you may not be expecting me to write… In my fantasy life, I’m Martha Stewart. I get really, really happy when I have the rare opportunity to set a table for a formal dinner. When I go to the mall, I spend more time window shopping at Williams-Sonoma than at any clothing or shoe store. And I have zero problem with families who decide that the “Leave it to Beaver” route works for them (operative word here being “decide,” as in “choosing between many available options”).
But it pisses me off when privileged – and, sorry, but if you’re blogging about $22 dish towels you’re pretty damned privileged – people insist that the families who *aren’t* hosting tea parties for other ladies-who-lunch are doing something wrong. Newsflash: some women (and men) work outside the home because they like it. Some women (and men) work because they need the income. Some women (and men) are homemakers because that’s what works for their families.
But what *really* burns me is this myth that wives were in perfect shape back before the evil feminists made them all get jobs. Cox writes that her “role models draw upon the influences of iconic ladies of the 1940’s and 1950’s, who unfalteringly flaunted their femininity and proudly cared for their homes, husbands and children.” Well, as the old joke goes, “My, isn’t that nice?” Would you like to know what my grandmother was doing in the 50s? SHE HAD A JOB. My grandmother ALWAYS worked, because her family needed the income. The difference between her life and mine is that she was confined to low-income work, whereas I was fortunate enough to go to college and go on to an actual career.
Cox’s mythical 50s also completely ignore the reality of non-white women in America, who also have ALWAYS worked, and who were barred from both education and advancement by the very social structure that Cox loves so much. We’re talking about a social structure that legally and customarily prevented women from fully supporting themselves even if they wanted to – or had to (or maybe in Cox’s 50s, husbands never died, abused or abandoned their families?) For what it’s worth, the myth also ignores the fact that Jackie O, an idol of mine that Cox also claims as an influence, also had jobs both before her marriage and after her kids were grown.
The 50s myth is dangerous, it’s disrespectful and it’s inaccurate. And the proto-50’s myth-world is downright unattainable for most women in this country. It’s also a little sad that anyone would think that an unmarried woman can’t have a gracious, well-run household, too.
Cox is certainly welcome to her fantasy. But it is just that - a fantasy. Go ahead and blog about the high life. But please don’t tell me or anyone else that I should aspire to be one man away from welfare.
(Another for what it’s worth… Cox is really risking an intellectual property suit with subject tags like “Domestic Goddess” and “Things I Love.” Seriously, don’t mess with Martha.)
Here’s the thing you may not be expecting me to write… In my fantasy life, I’m Martha Stewart. I get really, really happy when I have the rare opportunity to set a table for a formal dinner. When I go to the mall, I spend more time window shopping at Williams-Sonoma than at any clothing or shoe store. And I have zero problem with families who decide that the “Leave it to Beaver” route works for them (operative word here being “decide,” as in “choosing between many available options”).
But it pisses me off when privileged – and, sorry, but if you’re blogging about $22 dish towels you’re pretty damned privileged – people insist that the families who *aren’t* hosting tea parties for other ladies-who-lunch are doing something wrong. Newsflash: some women (and men) work outside the home because they like it. Some women (and men) work because they need the income. Some women (and men) are homemakers because that’s what works for their families.
But what *really* burns me is this myth that wives were in perfect shape back before the evil feminists made them all get jobs. Cox writes that her “role models draw upon the influences of iconic ladies of the 1940’s and 1950’s, who unfalteringly flaunted their femininity and proudly cared for their homes, husbands and children.” Well, as the old joke goes, “My, isn’t that nice?” Would you like to know what my grandmother was doing in the 50s? SHE HAD A JOB. My grandmother ALWAYS worked, because her family needed the income. The difference between her life and mine is that she was confined to low-income work, whereas I was fortunate enough to go to college and go on to an actual career.
Cox’s mythical 50s also completely ignore the reality of non-white women in America, who also have ALWAYS worked, and who were barred from both education and advancement by the very social structure that Cox loves so much. We’re talking about a social structure that legally and customarily prevented women from fully supporting themselves even if they wanted to – or had to (or maybe in Cox’s 50s, husbands never died, abused or abandoned their families?) For what it’s worth, the myth also ignores the fact that Jackie O, an idol of mine that Cox also claims as an influence, also had jobs both before her marriage and after her kids were grown.
The 50s myth is dangerous, it’s disrespectful and it’s inaccurate. And the proto-50’s myth-world is downright unattainable for most women in this country. It’s also a little sad that anyone would think that an unmarried woman can’t have a gracious, well-run household, too.
Cox is certainly welcome to her fantasy. But it is just that - a fantasy. Go ahead and blog about the high life. But please don’t tell me or anyone else that I should aspire to be one man away from welfare.
(Another for what it’s worth… Cox is really risking an intellectual property suit with subject tags like “Domestic Goddess” and “Things I Love.” Seriously, don’t mess with Martha.)
Miss Michigan, Michelle Malkin and the Mayor
I hadn’t really planned to write about the new Miss USA, who’s the first woman of Arab descent to win that pageant title (or any, as far as I know…?), because I don’t really care about who wins a beauty pageant. (She’s also pro-contraception, which I think is awesome.) But apparently some folks are a little freaked out that Miss USA, who was born in Lebanon and now lives in Dearborn, Michigan, is a Muslim.
Because Muslims aren’t American, or something? Rima Fakih’s win is “affirmative action”? Oh, right, because bottle blond faux-tanned girls with implants are what’s normal in this country, dammit. What exactly is the problem? Does someone out there honestly believe the former Miss Michigan managed to cram a dirty bomb down her thong, imperiling the national treasure that is Donald Trump's rug?
Let me throw it to my conservative friend Mayor Jimmy, who had this to say in an e-mail (PROFANITY ALERT; cover your children’s ears):
“Dear Michelle Malkin and other currently foaming at the mouth right wingers.... WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT.
OK so lemme get this straight.... you all complain LOUDLY about how Mexicans refuse to adapt to our ways. they don't speak English or anything. so now here comes a hot Arab chick who speaks English, went to CATHOLIC SCHOOL even and has adapted to western culture to the point of she won a pole dancing contest and now you guys complain?!?!?!?
look, i'll admit she doesn't appear to be the brightest card in the deck and i'll even admit i think miss Oklahoma got torpedoed with the immigration question. none of this is deserving of the whack job shit you guys are spewing forth. just when you guys started making real progress to make yourselves appear to be more than just a bunch of racist jerk offs you go and pull this shit. you do realize this does absolutely NOTHING to help you right? not even FOX NEWS is going to go on and say ‘they might be right, she might be a terrorist plant.’”
Does it seem that non-white, non-Christian, maybe-not-born-here Americans can’t do anything to please the people who’ve appointed themselves the judges of who does and doesn’t have legitimacy in this country? And yes, his honor the mayor is right that, after the WTF-ness of Arizona’s new laws and the election year tradition of some double-negative-spewing candidate proposing we make English the official language, conservatives really could use a break from communicating that they are and always will be suspicious of anyone who doesn’t look like John Roberts.
While we’re on the subject… for the second year in a row, the Miss USA pageant has turned into the center of some cultural/political storm, complete with a runner-up who suspects she lost because she gave a right-wing answer to a question most candidates for public office couldn’t answer gracefully (remember Carrie Prejean?). I can’t decide if this is good or bad for our national conversation.
Because Muslims aren’t American, or something? Rima Fakih’s win is “affirmative action”? Oh, right, because bottle blond faux-tanned girls with implants are what’s normal in this country, dammit. What exactly is the problem? Does someone out there honestly believe the former Miss Michigan managed to cram a dirty bomb down her thong, imperiling the national treasure that is Donald Trump's rug?
Let me throw it to my conservative friend Mayor Jimmy, who had this to say in an e-mail (PROFANITY ALERT; cover your children’s ears):
“Dear Michelle Malkin and other currently foaming at the mouth right wingers.... WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT.
OK so lemme get this straight.... you all complain LOUDLY about how Mexicans refuse to adapt to our ways. they don't speak English or anything. so now here comes a hot Arab chick who speaks English, went to CATHOLIC SCHOOL even and has adapted to western culture to the point of she won a pole dancing contest and now you guys complain?!?!?!?
look, i'll admit she doesn't appear to be the brightest card in the deck and i'll even admit i think miss Oklahoma got torpedoed with the immigration question. none of this is deserving of the whack job shit you guys are spewing forth. just when you guys started making real progress to make yourselves appear to be more than just a bunch of racist jerk offs you go and pull this shit. you do realize this does absolutely NOTHING to help you right? not even FOX NEWS is going to go on and say ‘they might be right, she might be a terrorist plant.’”
Does it seem that non-white, non-Christian, maybe-not-born-here Americans can’t do anything to please the people who’ve appointed themselves the judges of who does and doesn’t have legitimacy in this country? And yes, his honor the mayor is right that, after the WTF-ness of Arizona’s new laws and the election year tradition of some double-negative-spewing candidate proposing we make English the official language, conservatives really could use a break from communicating that they are and always will be suspicious of anyone who doesn’t look like John Roberts.
While we’re on the subject… for the second year in a row, the Miss USA pageant has turned into the center of some cultural/political storm, complete with a runner-up who suspects she lost because she gave a right-wing answer to a question most candidates for public office couldn’t answer gracefully (remember Carrie Prejean?). I can’t decide if this is good or bad for our national conversation.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
I continue to *heart* Laura Bush
Last night on Larry King, former First Lady Laura Bush appeared to support both same-sex marriage and reproductive rights:
It's cool that Bush would frankly speak about views that are contrary to her husband's, as well as many of his supporters. If nothing else, it's proof that these issues aren't black and white - which means that there's room for common ground. I also hope that my conservative friends take Bush's point that either position is totally compatible with a conservative philosophy.
Should Bush have been more vocal during her husband's presidency? On one hand, we didn't elect her. And I completely understand her not wanting to publicly contradict the administration's policies. But, on the other hand, isn't there an obligation to speak out on behalf of the powerless when, say, your husband's top adviser is cynically urging states to draft same-sex and abortion-related ballot initiatives in order to help him get re-elected?
A more random question - why are things like same-sex marriage and reproductive rights referred to as "social issues," separate from apparently hard concerns like fiscal policy or foreign policy? Food for thought...
It's cool that Bush would frankly speak about views that are contrary to her husband's, as well as many of his supporters. If nothing else, it's proof that these issues aren't black and white - which means that there's room for common ground. I also hope that my conservative friends take Bush's point that either position is totally compatible with a conservative philosophy.
Should Bush have been more vocal during her husband's presidency? On one hand, we didn't elect her. And I completely understand her not wanting to publicly contradict the administration's policies. But, on the other hand, isn't there an obligation to speak out on behalf of the powerless when, say, your husband's top adviser is cynically urging states to draft same-sex and abortion-related ballot initiatives in order to help him get re-elected?
A more random question - why are things like same-sex marriage and reproductive rights referred to as "social issues," separate from apparently hard concerns like fiscal policy or foreign policy? Food for thought...
Wait - what?
What's that sound old-school cartoon characters make when they're confused and their heads flop back and forth? ("Uddah-yuddah-yuddah -BOINK!"?) 'Cause I made the same sound a second ago when I read this:
UPDATE: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed a bill that will end ethnic studies classes in the state. Her action came one day after UN human rights experts released a statement criticizing the bill on the grounds that all people have the right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage.
The bill bans classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people," "are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals."
Also prohibited: all those classes that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government."
Wait - what? "Promote resentment toward a race or class of people"? "Designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group"? "Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals"? You mean, like - I dunno - every European-American-focused history course ever taught??? Because most of the history textbooks I had the misfortune to read growing up most certainly promoted resentment toward Native Americans, African Americans and other ethnic minorities, were pretty apparently designed for the comfort of white pupils (and their white school boards), and in my experience required me to regurgitate "facts" that advocated my white superiority, as opposed to my Native American/poor white trash/historically pacifist heritage, not to mention my common sense.
If we are, in fact, talking about classes like "African American studies" or "Latino studies" or something else, then I think it warrants pointing out that those types of programs present American history/social studies from the perspective of a certain population (as opposed to privileged white people). If hearing about the decisions that a white (usually male, always wealthy) society made to advance itself over ethnic or racial minorities breeds "resentment" toward those people, I kind of think that's a perfectly valid initial response.
But every multicultural program I've taken tries pretty hard NOT to brainwash students into wanting to lynch Whitey. Students *should* be angry when they learn about the ways ethnic, racial, gender and religious bigotry has been used to consolidate the power of the few, and how that dynamic still affects us. But the great thing about these programs is the way they open the conversation and promote critical thinking. (Which is why African-American studies classes aren't just for African Americans, women's studies not just for women, etc.
Does this affect public colleges, too? Wow, Arizona is not remotely prepared for the brain-drain that's about to happen to them. Every student, every professor, every dean who can't stomach some random person in state government totally eliminating their academic freedom is about to transfer. And the ones who stay will be wondering when the governor will be coming for them.
And, "all those classes that 'promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.'"? What the hell? Arizona is officially off my list of places I ever want to visit. Clearly something deeply nuts is happening there.
UPDATE: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed a bill that will end ethnic studies classes in the state. Her action came one day after UN human rights experts released a statement criticizing the bill on the grounds that all people have the right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage.
The bill bans classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people," "are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals."
Also prohibited: all those classes that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government."
Wait - what? "Promote resentment toward a race or class of people"? "Designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group"? "Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals"? You mean, like - I dunno - every European-American-focused history course ever taught??? Because most of the history textbooks I had the misfortune to read growing up most certainly promoted resentment toward Native Americans, African Americans and other ethnic minorities, were pretty apparently designed for the comfort of white pupils (and their white school boards), and in my experience required me to regurgitate "facts" that advocated my white superiority, as opposed to my Native American/poor white trash/historically pacifist heritage, not to mention my common sense.
If we are, in fact, talking about classes like "African American studies" or "Latino studies" or something else, then I think it warrants pointing out that those types of programs present American history/social studies from the perspective of a certain population (as opposed to privileged white people). If hearing about the decisions that a white (usually male, always wealthy) society made to advance itself over ethnic or racial minorities breeds "resentment" toward those people, I kind of think that's a perfectly valid initial response.
But every multicultural program I've taken tries pretty hard NOT to brainwash students into wanting to lynch Whitey. Students *should* be angry when they learn about the ways ethnic, racial, gender and religious bigotry has been used to consolidate the power of the few, and how that dynamic still affects us. But the great thing about these programs is the way they open the conversation and promote critical thinking. (Which is why African-American studies classes aren't just for African Americans, women's studies not just for women, etc.
Does this affect public colleges, too? Wow, Arizona is not remotely prepared for the brain-drain that's about to happen to them. Every student, every professor, every dean who can't stomach some random person in state government totally eliminating their academic freedom is about to transfer. And the ones who stay will be wondering when the governor will be coming for them.
And, "all those classes that 'promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.'"? What the hell? Arizona is officially off my list of places I ever want to visit. Clearly something deeply nuts is happening there.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
“Lost:” How will it end?
(Here be spoilers…)
I have been a fan of “Lost” since the very, very beginning (promos during “Monday Night Football” that made me say, “Hey, it’s that guy from ‘The English Patient’ – I’m so there!”). And, though I enjoy reading episode recaps and gabbing about the show with other fans, I’ve never really been big on dissecting the show for hidden metaphysical meaning. I’d much rather just take it as it comes. I’ve found that the “ooh, what does THAT mean???” stuff really left me detached from the characters in a way I didn’t like. (For instance, last night was the first time I’ve cried at a “Lost” episode since the raft sailed away in Season 1.)
It’s not really fun for me to try and predict what will happen next. If I’m wrong, then I’m either disappointed or on the record for believing something that turns out to be wrong. And if I’m right, it’s like finding your Christmas presents hidden in the closet in July. You’re robbed of the chance to experience the story as it happens. (Like Christian Shephard being Claire’s father, something fans predicted roughly half a century before the show confirmed it. Yawn.)
So this post is not about trying to score one on the “Lost” writers, whom I’m confident will end the series later this month in the most satisfying, perfect fashion. It’s just an idea I had…
(Once again, here be spoilers. Seriously. And you should probably also stop reading if you don’t watch “Lost,” because this next part will make zero sense.)
Okay, so after last night’s episode we can put to rest any speculation that the Man in Black/Smokey/Fake Locke is NOT the good guy, and that Jacob might actually have good reasons for manipulating the “candidates” as he has throughout their lives. And the deaths of Jin, Sun and Sayid (*sniff*) would tend to suggest that the Sideways world, where all three are alive and sort-of well, isn’t the place where the castaways end up.
Here’s what I think: the Sideways world is a MiB/Smokey concoction. At some point in the last episodes, MiB will give The Candidate (my money’s on Jack, but it could easily be Sawyer or Hurley) a choice. He’ll reveal the Sideways world, and he’ll say something like this: This is what your life would be like if Jacob had never intervened. This is what everyone’s lives would be like. Most are happier than they were in real pre-crash life. More importantly, the people you care about – the Kwons, Sayid, Libby, Charlotte, Faraday, etc. – are alive.
The choice is this: Let me (MiB/Smokey) go, and this will all be real. You won’t have any memory of the crash, etc., and you’ll all live happily ever after – not just you, but your friends, too. Whoever the candidate turns out to be, he’ll have to make this choice. The temptation will be overwhelming.
And I predict that he’ll tell MiB to go to hell (possibly literally). As a result, everything reboots to the point where Juliet smashed Jughead, circa 1977. The survivors of “the incident” are still on the island, but allowed to leave (along with many probably very freaked out Dharma Initiative folks). They return to California and start over.
Remember when returning-to-island Jack had to go get a pair of his father’s shoes from his grandfather, who looked to be in his 60s? Maybe the grandfather was really Jack…? At Jack’s current age, plus roughly 35 years of back-in-real-world time, starting in the late 70s, that would put Alleged Grandpa at the right age in 2007, when Jack went to fetch the shoes.
Okay, that makes barely any sense. But – though, as I said, I trust the “Lost” writers completely – I’m for pretty much any ending that doesn’t involve Jack and Sawyer turning into the next Jacob/MiB.
(Although……………..SEQUEL!)
I have been a fan of “Lost” since the very, very beginning (promos during “Monday Night Football” that made me say, “Hey, it’s that guy from ‘The English Patient’ – I’m so there!”). And, though I enjoy reading episode recaps and gabbing about the show with other fans, I’ve never really been big on dissecting the show for hidden metaphysical meaning. I’d much rather just take it as it comes. I’ve found that the “ooh, what does THAT mean???” stuff really left me detached from the characters in a way I didn’t like. (For instance, last night was the first time I’ve cried at a “Lost” episode since the raft sailed away in Season 1.)
It’s not really fun for me to try and predict what will happen next. If I’m wrong, then I’m either disappointed or on the record for believing something that turns out to be wrong. And if I’m right, it’s like finding your Christmas presents hidden in the closet in July. You’re robbed of the chance to experience the story as it happens. (Like Christian Shephard being Claire’s father, something fans predicted roughly half a century before the show confirmed it. Yawn.)
So this post is not about trying to score one on the “Lost” writers, whom I’m confident will end the series later this month in the most satisfying, perfect fashion. It’s just an idea I had…
(Once again, here be spoilers. Seriously. And you should probably also stop reading if you don’t watch “Lost,” because this next part will make zero sense.)
Okay, so after last night’s episode we can put to rest any speculation that the Man in Black/Smokey/Fake Locke is NOT the good guy, and that Jacob might actually have good reasons for manipulating the “candidates” as he has throughout their lives. And the deaths of Jin, Sun and Sayid (*sniff*) would tend to suggest that the Sideways world, where all three are alive and sort-of well, isn’t the place where the castaways end up.
Here’s what I think: the Sideways world is a MiB/Smokey concoction. At some point in the last episodes, MiB will give The Candidate (my money’s on Jack, but it could easily be Sawyer or Hurley) a choice. He’ll reveal the Sideways world, and he’ll say something like this: This is what your life would be like if Jacob had never intervened. This is what everyone’s lives would be like. Most are happier than they were in real pre-crash life. More importantly, the people you care about – the Kwons, Sayid, Libby, Charlotte, Faraday, etc. – are alive.
The choice is this: Let me (MiB/Smokey) go, and this will all be real. You won’t have any memory of the crash, etc., and you’ll all live happily ever after – not just you, but your friends, too. Whoever the candidate turns out to be, he’ll have to make this choice. The temptation will be overwhelming.
And I predict that he’ll tell MiB to go to hell (possibly literally). As a result, everything reboots to the point where Juliet smashed Jughead, circa 1977. The survivors of “the incident” are still on the island, but allowed to leave (along with many probably very freaked out Dharma Initiative folks). They return to California and start over.
Remember when returning-to-island Jack had to go get a pair of his father’s shoes from his grandfather, who looked to be in his 60s? Maybe the grandfather was really Jack…? At Jack’s current age, plus roughly 35 years of back-in-real-world time, starting in the late 70s, that would put Alleged Grandpa at the right age in 2007, when Jack went to fetch the shoes.
Okay, that makes barely any sense. But – though, as I said, I trust the “Lost” writers completely – I’m for pretty much any ending that doesn’t involve Jack and Sawyer turning into the next Jacob/MiB.
(Although……………..SEQUEL!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)