Anti-racist and anti-fascist.

Archive for December, 2010

"Arsonists posing as firemen"

Paul Krugman has a great column in the New York Times about Republicans’ hypocritical stance on the deficit and budget: The New Voodoo. He says:

So if taxes don’t matter, does the incoming majority have a realistic plan to cut spending? Of course not. Republicans say that they want to cut $100 billion in spending, which is itself small change in a $3.6 trillion federal budget. But they also say that defense, Medicare and Social Security — all the big-ticket items — are off the table. So they’re talking about a 20 percent cut in what’s left, which includes things like running the judicial system and operating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; they have offered no specifics about where the cuts will fall.

We can only hope common sense wins the day. On a different note, have a safe and happy New Year’s celebration! Thanks for making the first two months of the blog such a success. We look forward to lots more discussion in 2011.

Don't use your cell phone while driving

This is one of those things that should go without saying, but unfortunately it doesn’t. Talking or texting on your cell phone while driving dramatically increases your chances of being in an accident. Not only are you putting your own life at risk, you are risking the lives of people in the cars around you and of pedestrians and bicyclists.

The mini-documentary below includes testimony from a young man who killed a bicyclist because he was paying more attention to his phone than the road. There is no way to atone for that. There’s no way to make it better for that bicyclist or his family.

As someone who has lost a loved one in a car accident, let me assure you: It’s just not worth it. Sending a one- or two-word text is not worth losing your life and putting your family through so much pain and heartache. So if you’re having trouble resisting, turn your phone off and put it out of reach while you’re in the car to remove temptation.

The fight for an open Internet

Net neutrality is an important issue that hasn’t been covered much in the media this year. Part of that is probably because it’s a little hard to explain. Basically, if you like the way you use the Internet now–paying a flat monthly fee to access all the content you want–you’re in favor of net neutrality. But big companies like AT&T, Verizon and Google want to charge you based on what you use and how you use it–for example, if you access the web from your cell phone, you’d be charged differently than if you access it from a computer.

This graphic elegantly and simply lays out the problem: The Open Internet: A Case for Net Neutrality. What’s next for the FCC and net neutrality? provides a good overview of the FCC’s decision and what could happen in Congress as a result. Educate yourself and let the FCC know you’re not happy with the weak protections that were recently approved.

Offensive diamond ads

Seen on a billboard on I-80: “Buy a diamond. That’ll shut her up.”

It’s hard to express how much this grates on me. It wasn’t for a company that I had heard of, but it makes me not want to buy a diamond—ever. The idea that a woman needs to be “shut up” and that a diamond is just the thing to do it is incredibly sexist. Apparently there are similar ads for diamond jewelers that say “Maker her speechless. For a change.” Again it relies on a tired stereotype of women as motormouths who don’t know when to be quiet.

Jewelers just aren’t very creative when it comes to making up new ads. I saw this on a billboard a week after I saw the first one: “She’s lying. She does want a bigger diamond.” Not only is this offensive to women, implying they don’t know their own minds, like the other ad, it also puts men in the position of being the purchasers. As if women don’t buy diamonds? I bought a substanial amount of jewelry for Christmas presents this season. But the jewelers who advertise in such a sexist way can rest assured I won’t be giving them business anytime soon.

I found the website for the jeweler who thinks women lie about wanting a bigger diamond, and I e-mailed them about how offensive I find it. I’ll let you know if I get a response.

What makes characters likable?

Fictionaut posed this question to author Daniel Handler, who has written, among other things, the “Lemony Snicket” series of books. His response:

For one thing, I’m always mystified by discussions of likable characters. Characters are in books; you’re not going to have lunch with them. Moreover, the best books are full of trouble, so the characters are either in trouble or causing it. Most people aren’t likable in such situations.

Even if by “likable” we just mean “characters we enjoy reading about,” rather than “characters who seem like people we’d like,” then we’re not really talking about characters at all. Otherwise, the characters would be fully portable, and readers would find Lady Macbeth equally compelling in a Harlequin novel and in Macbeth. (I suppose there are people who consider Han Solo to be an equally compelling character in Star Wars novels #12 and #43, by separate authors, but, um, give me a break.) It’s like saying that the great thing about Kind Of Blue isn’t Miles Davis, but the trumpet itself. Such a compelling instrument!

Thus, character is bunk. There is plot, and there is voice, and they conspire to create an illusion we call “literature.” It is a glorious illusion and a compelling one. When a writer tells me they’re worried about a character they usually mean there’s a flaw in the plot, or the prose just isn’t pulling things together.

I disagree. It might not matter whether one individual character is more likable than another, but I’d argue there has to be at least one likable character per book. Otherwise, what’s the point of writing or reading it?

Two of the classics I have not care for at all are “Wuthering Heights” and “Great Expectations.” I didn’t like a single character, so I didn’t care what happened to them. That made it extremely difficult to finish reading the books. So there has to be a redeeming quality in at least one of your characters, or else no one is going to want to read your work.

Goodbye, 111th Congress

Both chambers of Congress have adjourned until Jan. 5. Originally scheduled to end Dec. 17, the session was extended until Dec. 22. Although some congressmen were unhappy about it, saying it was “un-Christian” to work in the week before Christmas (like the vast majority of Americans do), a lot got done in the final few days that everyone should be happy about.

With the end of the session, however, comes the departure of many congressmen. This is by no means an exhaustive list, just some who have caught my eye over the past year. First, the senators:

  • Evan Bayh of Indiana chose not to run again and hasn’t announced what he’ll do next. He was replaced by Dan Coats, who held Bayh’s seat before Bayh decided to run in 1998.  The only reason I’m sad to see him leave the Senate is because Republicans picked up his seat. He was too conservative for me and never seemed to take a strong stand on anything.
  • Russ Feingold, a progressive hero from Wisconsin, was defeated in November. I will miss his fierce and passionate support of liberal causes. I hope he stays involved in the national Democratic party.
  • Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania, switched parties in the hopes he would be able to keep his seat this year. It didn’t work. He lost a primary challenge to Joe Sestak, who later lost to Pat Toomey in the general election. I didn’t think much of Specter’s switch because it seemed motivated by desperation. Here’s a story on his final Senate speech.
  • Blanche Lincoln is another Democrat I’m not sorry to see go. Elected from Arkansas, she opposed many of the national party’s causes while still expecting them to help her win re-election. This month she missed the vote on DADT because she was at the dentist.
  • Jim Bunning was my senator for three years, and he made so little an impression on me all I can tell you is he used to play baseball. He’ll be replaced by Rand Paul, who came across as more than a little crazy as reporters dug into his past. I’m still disappointed Jack Conway didn’t win the seat, but I have high hopes for him, and I’m sure he’ll keep working on behalf of the people of Kentucky.
  • Roland Burris is most famous for the way he was appointed to fill Barack Obama’s former Senate seat from Illinois. I think the best thing that can be said about him is he kept his head down after the scandal involving former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
  • Chris Dodd of Connecticut seems like a good guy but as chairman of the banking committee, he was very resistant to Wall Street reform. He insisted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were financially sound shortly before the government took them over. Not surprisingly, he is the No. 1 recipient in Congress of campaign funds from both groups. So maybe it’s for the best Dodd no longer has any influence over national banking standards.
  • Sam Brownback of Kansas has been a strident anti-abortion crusader. He successfully ran for governor of Kansas instead of seeking another Senate term. Kansas’ abortion laws are already strict, and I’m afraid what further laws will be passed under his administration.

A few of those leaving the House of Representatives:

  • Alan Grayson, of Florida, espouses liberal values but he was also antagonistic. I wish more Democrats would stand up for their beliefs, but Grayson went too far sometimes. He also refused to support net neutrality. It will be interesting to see if he runs for office again.
  • Kendrick Meek, another Floridian, wasn’t familiar to me until this cycle, but he has a strong background of supporting liberal causes. He left the House to run for the Senate and lost. I hope he continues to be involved in progressive politics.
  • Steve Buyer, of Indiana, didn’t seek re-election because of his wife’s health. We have opposite views on every issue, which was annoying when he was my congressman. I’m sorry for his wife’s illness but I’m not sorry that he’s retiring.
  • Bart Stupak, of Michigan, was much in the news this year because of health care reform. He was co-author of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that made it harder for women to access abortion. I’m quite happy to see him lose his job for taking such a public anti-woman stance.
  • Bob Inglis is a conservative from South Carolina who lost his seat for not being conservative enough. I’m sure we disagree on a lot of things, but he was one of the few sane Republicans left in Congress. He refused to buy into smear campaigns against President Obama by saying he’s a Muslim who wasn’t born in this country. So for telling the truth and being reasonable, he was voted out of office.

What about you? Are you happy to see any senators or representatives gone? Are you looking forward to their replacements?

Bonus Fun Friday

For your visual pleasure, here are a couple of examples of the Christmas spirit being taken too far:

25 Examples of Christmas Decoration Abuse

I think No. 5 is actually kind of pretty. I’m not convinced No. 6 has a house hiding behind it. Also, Nos. 2 and 19 are the same photo, so it’s really 24 Examples of Christmas Decoration Abuse.

Awkward Christmas photo contest

AwkwardFamilyPhotos.com has hosted a holiday photo contest that should reassure you that your family pictures aren’t nearly as bad as you think. Some of these people must have been drunk when taking their photos; that’s the only explanation I can come up with for the “naked” father.

Holiday photos that you’ll regret

The above is a link to the CNN report on the photo contest, where they interview a couple of the finalists.

Recognize your privilege

One of the ways we can work toward a less racist, sexist, classist, ableist society is by recognizing the privilege we benefit from every day. For white people, most of that privilege is unconscious, and it takes someone pointing it out to recognize it. And once we do, it’s not always easy to give up.

I attended a sociology lecture in college where the speaker called a tall white male student up to the stage. She asked if he valued his height. (He was 6-foot-plus, she was about 5 feet.) He wasn’t sure what to say, but then she asked if he would rather be his height or her height. Put that way, it’s easier to see the privilege many people take for granted.

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh is a famous piece of work in the humanities. In it, she lists the benefits white people experience every day simply for being white.

“I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks. … My schooling followed the pattern my colleague Elizabeth Minnich has pointed out: whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow them to be more like us.”

Tim Wise put forth a thought experiment earlier this year. He asked the public to imagine what would happen if instead of a majority white movement (the tea party) criticizing and threatening a black president, a majority black group were criticizing and threatening a white president. The reaction wouldn’t be so nonchalant, would it? He says:

“Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark ‘other’ does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic.”

Terry Keleher, as a white man raising an adopted son, who is black, has noticed that people react differently to him when he is accompanied by his son than when he is alone. He wants to prepare his son for how to respond to situations that may arise with teachers, employers, pedestrians and police officers, and he doesn’t think the way to do it is to pretend race doesn’t exist:

“Instead of colorblind parenting … we need to embrace racially conscientious parenting, where we prepare our children and ourselves to deal with reality so we can change it. It means choosing to become consciously and actively part of the solution instead of unconsciously and passively part of the problem.”

There’s more than one type of privilege, and a lot of them intersect. Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology at SUNY Stonybrook, has studied masculinity for decades and the invisible privilege that comes along with it. Chloe at Feministing writes about his work in Michael Kimmel on male entitlement, anger and invisible privilege. What has stuck in my mind ever since reading it is this:

“One of the great achievements of feminism, he said, was to make women’s gender visible. Most women today understand that it is possible for them to be victims of gender-based discrimination, and most men are aware of that phenomenon, too. When a woman looks in the mirror, Kimmel said, they see a woman. But when a man – a white straight middle class man, at least – looks in the mirror, he just sees a person. The assumption of white straight middle class man as standard and objective, as the norm, in our culture, means that white straight middle class men have no reason to think particularly hard about race, class or gender, since everything around them confirms that they are normal. Women, people of color, queer people or poor people, those who don’t see themselves depicted as average members of our society, are aware of that dissonance every single moment of the day.

“In other words, privilege – in this case, the privilege of being assumed to be the best possible representative of your culture – is invisible. Men, Kimmel said, don’t think about being men in the same way that women think about being women, or think about being white in the same way that people of color think about being people of color. They don’t believe they have biases or prejudices that affect their experience of the world; it’s for this reason that when a Latina was nominated for the Supreme Court, it was assumed that she would bring biases and prejudices with her. It seemingly never occurred to the largely white, largely male Senate that questioned her at length about those biases that straight white men, who comprise the SCOTUS and much of the Senate, also inevitably have biases. In their mind, they were objective and neutral.”

Kimmel also points out that it is only when white men start losing their privilege–for example, as more women are appointed to the Supreme Court–that they become aware of their entitlement and protest losing it.

So what we have to do to eliminate the privilege inherent in a racist, sexist, classist and ableist society is point it out. Don’t sit back and be silent because it’s to your advantage to ignore discrimination against others. Be willing to let go of some of your privilege so we can work toward a day when we will all be on a level playing field.

Edited Dec. 24 to add: Rick found this great essay on how to deal with your privilege: White Privilege: 10 Ways to be an Ally

I couldn't resist

Are you smarter than a Fox News viewer? Take the quiz here to find out.

Follow-ups to recent posts

Here are a few updates in issues we’ve covered at Progressive Blogic in the last week:

Accusations against Julian Assange: Rachel Maddow interviewed Michael Moore recently, and he talked about his support for Assange and how that interfered with his support of rape victims. I’m not sure I buy his explanation. He still doesn’t seem to understand he can support WikiLeaks’ goal of transparency without smearing assault victims.

Conservative framing: If you haven’t read Rick’s great post We are all being framed, now would be a great time to do so. Then visit the Daily Dish, where readers are discussing the pros and cons of the term “Obamacare.” I have to say I’m against it myself, for the simple fact that conservatives thought it up and mean it to be insulting. Another take here.

DADT repeal: President Obama signed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” into law today. It will still take a while for the military to implement repeal, but this is a major victory for gay rights activists. I didn’t think this Congress was going to be able to get this done before the end of the session, but I am thrilled to be proved wrong.