Salon.com has a must-read about Johnny Cash's artistic activism on behalf of Native Americans, chiefly his 1964 album "Bitter Tears." Cash doesn't get enough credit for this kind of thing. Now that he's dead, dutifully memorialized in Hollywood film and celebrated by hipsters, it's easy to ignore the radicalism in songs like "Man in Black":
Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.
I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.
I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.
Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.
I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.
And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.
Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.
Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Til things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Still Whining
Carrie Prejean has a book out, and apparently a years-old sexting tape. And I really don’t care. But I DO care about defending myself.
Carrie, honey, you’re young and you’re going to make many more mistakes in your life. You got fired from your beauty queen job because you violated your contract. You’re still in the public eye because you choose to be. And, for the record, here’s how this particular leftist “attacked” you last May:
It's easy to defend people that you approve of. It's not easy for me to defend Carrie Prejean. I think her views on same-sex civil rights are elementary and based on a faulty interpretation of both scripture and law. I think she's letting herself be used by bigots who wouldn't give her the time of day if she weighed 300 pounds and had bushy eyebrows. But I also think that, as poor as her reasoning is, she has every right to her opinion. I also think that the nudie-picture/implant shaming of her is as sexist as when Laura Ingraham tried to shut down Meghan McCain by calling her "plus-sized." As Feministing wrote today, it's not okay to fight homophobia with misogyny.
So stop your whining. I never did anything to you.
Carrie, honey, you’re young and you’re going to make many more mistakes in your life. You got fired from your beauty queen job because you violated your contract. You’re still in the public eye because you choose to be. And, for the record, here’s how this particular leftist “attacked” you last May:
It's easy to defend people that you approve of. It's not easy for me to defend Carrie Prejean. I think her views on same-sex civil rights are elementary and based on a faulty interpretation of both scripture and law. I think she's letting herself be used by bigots who wouldn't give her the time of day if she weighed 300 pounds and had bushy eyebrows. But I also think that, as poor as her reasoning is, she has every right to her opinion. I also think that the nudie-picture/implant shaming of her is as sexist as when Laura Ingraham tried to shut down Meghan McCain by calling her "plus-sized." As Feministing wrote today, it's not okay to fight homophobia with misogyny.
So stop your whining. I never did anything to you.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Historic preservation vs. "property rights"
Last year, someone drove into my cousin Spring's mailbox. Shortly after it was replaced, Spring got a letter from her neighborhood association informing her that the numbers on her new mailbox did not fit the development's approved template. Seriously. Now, me personally, I don't like the idea of living in a place where they even HAVE approved templates for mailbox numbers, let alone where someone would go to the trouble of noticing the mailbox numbers and sending a multi-page letter to the offender. But Spring and her family knew when they bought a house in this particular neighborhood that there would be restrictions on what they could and couldn't do with their property, and the benefits outweighed the pain-in-the-ass factor.
Almost 30 years ago, Forsyth County named an 18th century home in Lewisville a local historic landmark, which meant that its owner could receive a substantial tax break in return for preserving the property. This isn't revolutionary. Certain places - such as extant historic landscapes, parks, etc. - belong to the public trust. This is something we as a society decided long ago. And it's fair that a property of public historic significance, but that is maintained by a private family, should be eligible for tax benefits in return.
But now the River John Conrad House's current owners, who bought the property in the late 90s, want to remove it from the list so that they can add a 6,000-square-foot addition, including a swimming pool. Not only would this radically alter the house, but construction of that size would destroy the property's archaeological record. And, in my view, it would also set a very dangerous precedent. If the current owners can successfully argue - decades later - that the act of historic restoration itself destroys the property's historic value - we're talking about standard practices such as replacing floorboards here - then why even HAVE the LHL designation in the first place?
I attended the September county commissioners meeting, where the board voted to ask the county's Historic Resources Commission to take a more detailed look. The board will hear the HRC's unanimous recommendation to keep the Conrad house of the LHL list tonight. Despite this recommendation from the board of local experts appointed to make these very sorts of recommendations, not to mention the State Historic Preservation Office's two cents, certain commissioners are just not hearing it. Two of them should arguably recuse themselves from the vote entirely given personal relationships with the petitioner.
I'm not going to call out certain allegedly moderate Democratic commissioners who are up for re-election next year, but who haven't changed their position on the de-list despite, literally, volumes of historic record, testimony from preservation experts and pleas from dozens of citizens. I'm just going to say that the "property rights" argument in favor of removing the Conrad house's status is horsesh*t. (Ask my cousin Spring's mailbox.)
Despite the common libertarian fantasy of no public standards whatsoever (or, as I call it, Somalia), our society has pretty much settled the idea that we give up a small amount of personal license for the good of the community. That's why I get nasty letters from the city when I let my grass grow too high. And that's why scuttling a decades-old policy that's helped build our community's unique character just because a commissioner whose name rhymes with Schmed Schmaplan has a buddy who wants to build a swimming pool is a REALLY bad idea.
Almost 30 years ago, Forsyth County named an 18th century home in Lewisville a local historic landmark, which meant that its owner could receive a substantial tax break in return for preserving the property. This isn't revolutionary. Certain places - such as extant historic landscapes, parks, etc. - belong to the public trust. This is something we as a society decided long ago. And it's fair that a property of public historic significance, but that is maintained by a private family, should be eligible for tax benefits in return.
But now the River John Conrad House's current owners, who bought the property in the late 90s, want to remove it from the list so that they can add a 6,000-square-foot addition, including a swimming pool. Not only would this radically alter the house, but construction of that size would destroy the property's archaeological record. And, in my view, it would also set a very dangerous precedent. If the current owners can successfully argue - decades later - that the act of historic restoration itself destroys the property's historic value - we're talking about standard practices such as replacing floorboards here - then why even HAVE the LHL designation in the first place?
I attended the September county commissioners meeting, where the board voted to ask the county's Historic Resources Commission to take a more detailed look. The board will hear the HRC's unanimous recommendation to keep the Conrad house of the LHL list tonight. Despite this recommendation from the board of local experts appointed to make these very sorts of recommendations, not to mention the State Historic Preservation Office's two cents, certain commissioners are just not hearing it. Two of them should arguably recuse themselves from the vote entirely given personal relationships with the petitioner.
I'm not going to call out certain allegedly moderate Democratic commissioners who are up for re-election next year, but who haven't changed their position on the de-list despite, literally, volumes of historic record, testimony from preservation experts and pleas from dozens of citizens. I'm just going to say that the "property rights" argument in favor of removing the Conrad house's status is horsesh*t. (Ask my cousin Spring's mailbox.)
Despite the common libertarian fantasy of no public standards whatsoever (or, as I call it, Somalia), our society has pretty much settled the idea that we give up a small amount of personal license for the good of the community. That's why I get nasty letters from the city when I let my grass grow too high. And that's why scuttling a decades-old policy that's helped build our community's unique character just because a commissioner whose name rhymes with Schmed Schmaplan has a buddy who wants to build a swimming pool is a REALLY bad idea.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Well, that didn't take long
It didn’t even take a full 24 hours for “Fox & Friends” to go there: should the military have special screenings for Muslim soldiers?
While he doesn’t challenge the BS assumption that the military and society at large have grown too “politically correct” (or that being aware of the sensitivities of non-white, able-bodied, hetero men is a negative), Geraldo at least mentions the fact that there are millions of Muslims in the military already. No one had the balls (or maybe the knowledge) to bring up Charles Whitman, the ex-Marine (and youngest-ever Eagle Scout) who killed 14 and wounded 32 in the 1966
Monday, November 2, 2009
A letter to Virginia Foxx
(Just sent... will let you know if I get a response)
Rep. Foxx,
I am incredibly bothered by the comparison you made today between health care reform and terrorism. It was offensive to people who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and in the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as those that continue to fight terrorism in the military and law enforcement.
Anyone who has followed the debate over government-driven health insurance reform has concerns, particularly with the impact on our nation’s debt. But I think you and I have very different priorities.
I work at Guilford College, where my employer pays 75 percent of the cost of my health insurance. We’re in the process of re-bidding, and are looking at increases of between 3 and 25 percent. Aside from the substantial impact this increase will have on the college’s budget, which could reduce our ability to serve our core constituency, our students, higher-cost premiums will negatively affect employees.
For me, it's a pain, but it won't break me. For some of my co-workers, the additional expense will definitely be a hardship. I'm not just speculating here... I head up the staff association, and we're in the process of settling our winter service project. In the past, we've collected gifts, "angel tree" style, for staff members who need extra help around the holidays. These are employed, hard-working people who nevertheless couldn't afford to buy presents for their children, let alone paying heating bills, without assistance.
Last year, we collected money for a staff member who contracted an infection during her pregnancy that put her in a wheelchair, probably permanently. She couldn't afford to buy the wheelchair, though; we had a bake sale to raise money for her. She still comes to work every day in that same wheelchair.
Of course I’m concerned about increasing national debt to pay for health care reform. But I’m far more concerned about people who - no BS, no hyperbole - have to decide every month between paying the doctor or paying the light bill. They are not myths; I work with them every day.
Please reconsider your position.
Rep. Foxx,
I am incredibly bothered by the comparison you made today between health care reform and terrorism. It was offensive to people who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and in the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as those that continue to fight terrorism in the military and law enforcement.
Anyone who has followed the debate over government-driven health insurance reform has concerns, particularly with the impact on our nation’s debt. But I think you and I have very different priorities.
I work at Guilford College, where my employer pays 75 percent of the cost of my health insurance. We’re in the process of re-bidding, and are looking at increases of between 3 and 25 percent. Aside from the substantial impact this increase will have on the college’s budget, which could reduce our ability to serve our core constituency, our students, higher-cost premiums will negatively affect employees.
For me, it's a pain, but it won't break me. For some of my co-workers, the additional expense will definitely be a hardship. I'm not just speculating here... I head up the staff association, and we're in the process of settling our winter service project. In the past, we've collected gifts, "angel tree" style, for staff members who need extra help around the holidays. These are employed, hard-working people who nevertheless couldn't afford to buy presents for their children, let alone paying heating bills, without assistance.
Last year, we collected money for a staff member who contracted an infection during her pregnancy that put her in a wheelchair, probably permanently. She couldn't afford to buy the wheelchair, though; we had a bake sale to raise money for her. She still comes to work every day in that same wheelchair.
Of course I’m concerned about increasing national debt to pay for health care reform. But I’m far more concerned about people who - no BS, no hyperbole - have to decide every month between paying the doctor or paying the light bill. They are not myths; I work with them every day.
Please reconsider your position.
I promise we're not all like this!
Question: why are people who think that government is somewhere between useless and evil so anxious to be part of it? In other words, if Rep. Virginia Foxx honestly thinks that health care reform is more dangerous for our country than this guy, why doesn't she run screaming out of the oh-so-scary House chamber back to her bunker? (Loan forgiveness for veterinary students! Horrors!)
Answer? She doesn't believe it. There are plenty of honest reasons to oppose this specific bill, but it's more fun to frighten her constituents with lies. For frak's sake, Virginia... if you have issues with the bill, then use your Constitutionally mandated authority to change it. Don't make everybody in northwest North Carolina look like an idiot.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Cautionary tale, meet victim-blaming
The blog Helpful Comments has compiled comments from an AOL news story about the girl who was gang-raped at a school dance last week. All I can say is, they have stronger stomachs than I do. She – a 15-year-old, by the way – was drinking. She was wearing a skirt. She was female in the presence of rapists. All of which are apparently mitigating factors in the minds of these commentors.
When I take a cleansing breath, I can give great benefit of the doubt to these commentors and assume that they’re not *actually* blaming the victim of a gang-rape that put her in the hospital, that instead they’re trying to dig out from this awful incident some sort of cautionary lesson.
Unfortunately, in the rape apologist’s scramble to find some way to find fault with the victim in order to assure him/herself that something like this would NEVER happen to them, or their daughter, or their sister, they ARE, in fact, blaming the victim. I can promise you that this young woman is revisiting every decision she made that night, second-guessing, asking herself, if I’d only done this, not done this, then I wouldn’t have been in the position for this thing to have happened to me. I can promise you that she’s feeling every iota of her part in what happened to her that night, and will for the rest of her life.
Every rape-prevention program in this country does the same thing – don’t walk alone at night, don’t dress provocatively, carry mace, etc. How about this… DON’T RAPE PEOPLE. It just seems so much simpler, no?
When I take a cleansing breath, I can give great benefit of the doubt to these commentors and assume that they’re not *actually* blaming the victim of a gang-rape that put her in the hospital, that instead they’re trying to dig out from this awful incident some sort of cautionary lesson.
Unfortunately, in the rape apologist’s scramble to find some way to find fault with the victim in order to assure him/herself that something like this would NEVER happen to them, or their daughter, or their sister, they ARE, in fact, blaming the victim. I can promise you that this young woman is revisiting every decision she made that night, second-guessing, asking herself, if I’d only done this, not done this, then I wouldn’t have been in the position for this thing to have happened to me. I can promise you that she’s feeling every iota of her part in what happened to her that night, and will for the rest of her life.
Every rape-prevention program in this country does the same thing – don’t walk alone at night, don’t dress provocatively, carry mace, etc. How about this… DON’T RAPE PEOPLE. It just seems so much simpler, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)