Saturday, March 16, 2013
sfood "why the dark angels like the dark"
J: Oh you don't know angels yet? Let me get this book…. So here are pictures of angels. They're God's messengers. Do they teach you about God at the JCC? El Shaddai, or Adonai?
H: No.
J: Jahweh?
H: No.
J: Well, they bring light to the world and deliver God's message to people about what it means to be good.
J: Oh, and here's the fallen angels, sometimes called devils. They like to make the world darker.
H: I think maybe that's because they can see better at night.
J: Hang on.... I have to write that down, because your words offered some new theological insights, regarding moral frameworks of reference. Thanks amigo.
H: Lumpy dumpy wissy woo!
H: Lumpy dumpy wissy woo!
Blessings and gratitude,
Joel
"May we trespass together into prophetic imagination." -Rev. Karen Tse
Labels: angels, Henry, oppression, theological sources
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Reproductive Justice and other Frameworks
This method of understanding different frameworks was from La'Tasha Mayes of New Voices Pittsburgh: Women of Color for Reproductive Choice, also here on Facebook. She presented to our congregation at the most recent Sunday morning forum, and opened us up!
Since the picture I took is a little fuzzy, here are the contents of the chart:
From a quick review of this chart, I think many of the terms ought to be fairly clear with a little reflection or conversation with others. However, a few that I think could require a little learning curve (for someone like myself) may include:
Human Rights: UN Universal Declaration. Pittsburgh Human Rights Network.
Movement-Building: The Gamaliel network is one example. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is another. There is more than one way to build power, and a good start is leaders who are themselves organized, and can organize masses of people, masses of money, or both.
Systemic Oppression: Here's a static definition from pcc.edu:
Self-Help:
Since the picture I took is a little fuzzy, here are the contents of the chart:
FRAMEWORKS
|
|||
Reproductive Rights
|
Reproductive Health
|
Reproductive Justice
|
|
Mode of Delivery
|
Legal Systems
|
Healthcare
Delivery
|
Movement-Building
|
Issues
|
Abortion;
Contraception; Informed Consent; Privacy
|
Access to full
range of reproductive health services; low/no-cost, and
culturally-competent care; comprehensive sex education;
contraception; pre-natal/pregnancy care; abortion services;
cancer prevention; health insurance
|
RR + RH +
Human Rights; systemic oppression; self-help; intersectionality
|
Key Players
|
Lawyers,
judges, policymakers, elected officials, advocacy groups
|
Healthcare
providers, medical professionals, community and public health
educators, researchers
|
Community
organizers, Women of Color, marginalized groups, social justice
organizations, Allies
|
From a quick review of this chart, I think many of the terms ought to be fairly clear with a little reflection or conversation with others. However, a few that I think could require a little learning curve (for someone like myself) may include:
Human Rights: UN Universal Declaration. Pittsburgh Human Rights Network.
Movement-Building: The Gamaliel network is one example. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is another. There is more than one way to build power, and a good start is leaders who are themselves organized, and can organize masses of people, masses of money, or both.
Systemic Oppression: Here's a static definition from pcc.edu:
Institutional Oppression is the systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group, supported and enforced by the society and its institutions, solely based on the person’s membership in the social identity group.
Institutional Oppression occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions.
Institutional Oppression creates a system of invisible barriers limiting people based on their membership in unfavored social identity groups. The barriers are only invisible to those “seemingly” unaffected by it.
The practice of institutionalized oppression is based on the belief in inherent superiority or inferiority. Institutionalized oppression is a matter of result regardless of intent.And here's a dynamic definition of systemic oppression.
Self-Help:
Central to several key women of color organizations has been the self-help model. Using a process of dialogue and active listening as a way of demystifying the health problems communities faced, the self-help model assumes that collectively participants can thread through the difficult problems — including racism, poverty, low self-esteem and stress — and use their intelligence to find meaningful solutions. This approach is central to sparking self- healing as well as social action.
Intersectionality: My understanding of this is that pretty much every one of us fits into some categories of privilege and some categories of oppression. Sometimes, the intersection can be seen as a multiplier (as in being female and a person of color), and sometimes a mitigator (as in being female and white, or female and able-bodied, etc. Noting the link just above from the WWHATSUP training on white supremacy, "arguing hierarchies of oppressions is not helpful."
And here again, Tumblr is a great resource for providing a conversation on a crowd-sourced definition.
Allies: My understanding of an ally is somebody who is outside of an oppressed social identity group, and who stands with others who are bearing the brunt of that oppression -- because often people in privileged categories are more likely to hear folks from their same categories, rather than writing somebody "different" off as "just acting on their own self-interest." This can be in the form of a group of men who speak up for women or third-gender folks. This can be a white person who marches with people of color. This can be an able-bodied person, or a cisgender person, or a heterosexual person, or anybody who could be identified as outside of certain oppressed social groups, who is there to work together with people within those groups, and use their voice as an amplifier. Note with intersectionality, it is possible for ally-ship to be multi-directional or reciprocal, so working together helps us all.
It's important to note that speaking up for somebody is NOT the same as speaking FOR somebody. It's pretty much always best to speak from one's own experience, and be clear about when you're speaking from your understanding of another's experience. In other words, it's important to work on self-differentiation. And note that being an ally is most effective when it's in collaboration and conversation, on common ground, in community and accountability, with people you are allying with.
And finally, an ally is somebody who comprehends deep-down that the privilege they've been (arbitrarily) afforded is less valuable than the right-relationship of common ground, and willing to do the hard work of dismantling the privilege/oppression paradigms, thereby turning that which each of us inherently *deserves* into RIGHTS.
Back to the importance of the presentation itself, and what I see as a clear call to work for the larger vision of holistic justice: I believe that when women and girls of color (all colors actually -- from 2B1505 to F5F1E9 to 4D7BD1) achieve/receive/perceive equity and justice, we will ALL be free in an age where we each can be our authentic selves. ALL justice is connected, and the human rights (or lack thereof) in this area is a clear indicator of the condition of justice at present.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, anti-oppression, classism, Community, education, equal rights, oppression, sexuality, universal health care, women, Women's Rights
Thursday, November 15, 2012
From Henry Nelson Wieman's "The Problem of Power"
I found this in the American Journal of Theology and Philosophy (Vol. 3 no.1)
It's from Henry Nelson Wieman's book Creative Freedom: The Vocation of Liberal Religion
Comments from thread on FB:
It's from Henry Nelson Wieman's book Creative Freedom: The Vocation of Liberal Religion
Comments from thread on FB:
- This piece, written in 1982 [edit: oops, published in journal in 1982], is actually quite accurate for today, if not moreso.
The statement in the box, I do believe. There is a giant mass of people in the US who are not able to (or choose not to) see the big picture and would not choose to allocate funds toward that which is needed in a complex society, and THAT is why we elect representatives and executives, who should do their jobs with as little corruption as possible when they've chosen to take on that specialized role in our society. Sadly, most of those who've been governing have been neglecting to do so with the common good front-and-center.
Wieman argues that in a democracy, the people tend to argue for their own interests to the degree that for anybody to get into office, they have to kowtow to the voters' ill-informed [see 'media reform'] or myopic localized private demands; and anybody who gets into office (or tries to get in) and attempts to divert the process of governing AWAY from supporting these local interests toward the big things that only government can do is quickly voted out. Somehow military and prisons still receive support, but I imagine that's because they represent private moneyed interests whom the government is no longer able to govern, but rather now acts as a siphon of public funds.
The two solutions he presents are problematic in that I can't see a way to connect the dots between the present situation and attitudes to what is required to get out of this: "1) Demonstrable truth concerning the common good which underlies and sustains the diversity of local and private interests but not identical with any part or whole of them. And 2) a form of religion which leads [people] to trust and commit themselves to the common good sufficiently to allow their government to command resources and concerted action in its service independently of local and private interests. Also this devotion of religious commitment must control the leaders as well as the people and control [men] who exercise the power of authority in high positions of government."
I think he sees "religion" here secularly, in a way similar to my view of it: the way we live our life, rather than the narrow view of all the buildings, rituals. "Religion" being "that which holds us together," and "politics" being "how we choose to be in community with each other."
The big problem I see with #1 is that the framework for talking about the common good needs to be rebuilt, and that won't happen until there are a preponderance of voices doing so in the media. A media revolution would be required. And with #2 the problem I see has to do with the argument that Bo has made (I here paraphrase and add my own extension): Why would you want to support a government with your tax dollars that is doing so much bad with it and NOT putting it to the common good (drones, wall street, military and prison pork projects....)?
I would rewrite #2 (CAPS are new): a form of religion which leads [people] to trust and commit themselves to the common good sufficiently to allow AND DEMAND THAT their government to command resources and concerted action in its service independently of local and private interests. Also this devotion of religious commitment must control the leaders as well as the people and control [men] who exercise the power of authority in high positions of government." IOW we have to develop the willpower to REALLY inculcate ourselves and our future generations about the importance of the common good. I don't have any idea how many people would agree with that philosophy, or would be willing to offer up that much of their energy toward that even if we did have a really accountable government. Anarchy (aside from the "if men were angels, no government would be needed" mantra) would suck. Totalitarian dictatorship would suck. Democracy IMHO, done right, would suck less.
C: Military and Prisons also receive money because they are directly associated with Fear and a hypothetical lessening of fear by penalizing "bad people". Sadly the really bad people aren't always the ones incarcerated.- I wonder just where are these really bad people hiding out?
Wieman may provide an answer to this: "In all ages and among almost all peoples excepting recent Western society, a few persons had privileges traditionally established which the masses did not have. They had leisure, did no manual work, could wear ostentatious clothing permitted to no others and develop manners and qualities of mind which set them apart from the common people... which made everyone view these privileged few as a different kind of being from the rest of humanity."
Labels: 5th UU principle, 6th UU principle, education, government, media, oppression, organized religion, our mission, theology, USA
Friday, August 31, 2012
sfood h "daddy, what did invisible obama say to clint eastwood?"
this post is pre-work for a sermon. it is not in the order i would present it, nor is it developed at all. it is basically some ideas i wanted to put out right now. and posting publicly because in this case, timeliness is more important than a fully-fleshed out and cohesive linear argument.
this is an anti-racist diatribe from a white ally, to be reworked into an "AR(anti-racist)AO(anti-oppression)MC(multicultural)-creating" / "racism-oppression-uniculture dismantling" sermon.
ps - i am being climbed on by my son right now, trying to get my attention. in order to post this important missive. he wants me to look at pictures of tree-houses. he is three and a half. it hurts to be disregarding him. but he does need to learn the value of giving me ten minutes of downtime.
pps - now its later and we got a chance to play airplane and helicopter and read a book together.
this is an anti-racist diatribe from a white ally, to be reworked into an "AR(anti-racist)AO(anti-oppression)MC(multicultural)-creating" / "racism-oppression-uniculture dismantling" sermon.
on the screen at the center of the RNC without his consent or knowledge, is president obama, invisible, brought into the room, and having somebody else speaking for him (as if him). words spoken by a white man, a cowboy, no less. in a suit and tie.
sorry clint, but you appeared like an unscripted codger. i know you are a great actor, and perhaps this whole performance -- including the awkward pauses and meandering -- was intentional. i definitely saw racism at play, blaring actually. i do not see the racism here as inherent within you. i saw it within the spirit of the words, and the nature of the presentation. it was mean-spirited. and you implied our president saying something that most wise black men would abstain from saying (and obama always has). i think however that many might want to say it though, after the centuries of inequity and the PRESENT INSISTENCE of inequity.
but here is me -- a white man -- speaking on behalf of what a prototypical black man might say. i do recognize the irony in that, and i also recognize that this might need to be a dialog between whites, to make space for EVERYBODY's AUTHENTIC voice at the table.
in the past, when black men get angry and voice that anger -- or for that matter, when they express any emotion that could be perceived as challenging -- a chill rises, and white people get scared, and act in strange and scary ways themselves. we might need some white men to get angry to make that space for authentic voices of anger, of love, and fear, and hope. we might also need white men to speak to white men to open them to make space within themselves to hear others' authentic voices.
i believe there is a fear in the whites of retribution for the inequalities and grievances visited upon people of color. there is a fear of sadness when we admit the wrongs of the past and the ongoing wrongs. when this culture's heart finally does melt -- and i believe it will if we do not destroy ourselves -- i foresee the sadness, but i don't see the retribution. i see continued forgiveness, and an insistent request for TRUE equity of human relationship. and more soul for everybody. our white-person fears tend to keep us from getting down and getting groovy. IOW, mitt romney could not sing al green, because he has not experienced a life that correlates. what *would* mitt sing? (WWMS?)
but here is me -- a white man -- speaking on behalf of what a prototypical black man might say. i do recognize the irony in that, and i also recognize that this might need to be a dialog between whites, to make space for EVERYBODY's AUTHENTIC voice at the table.
in the past, when black men get angry and voice that anger -- or for that matter, when they express any emotion that could be perceived as challenging -- a chill rises, and white people get scared, and act in strange and scary ways themselves. we might need some white men to get angry to make that space for authentic voices of anger, of love, and fear, and hope. we might also need white men to speak to white men to open them to make space within themselves to hear others' authentic voices.
i believe there is a fear in the whites of retribution for the inequalities and grievances visited upon people of color. there is a fear of sadness when we admit the wrongs of the past and the ongoing wrongs. when this culture's heart finally does melt -- and i believe it will if we do not destroy ourselves -- i foresee the sadness, but i don't see the retribution. i see continued forgiveness, and an insistent request for TRUE equity of human relationship. and more soul for everybody. our white-person fears tend to keep us from getting down and getting groovy. IOW, mitt romney could not sing al green, because he has not experienced a life that correlates. what *would* mitt sing? (WWMS?)
now as regards the unspoken words of the invisible obama: any vulgarity-culture-aware american would know that in the dialog, when eastwood says, "no i'm not going to tell Romney to do that to himself." he is responding to the words he put in invisible obama's empty chair, saying "tell him to go f**k himself." he was expressing the black man's anger that obama has been so -- just wow -- capable of dispelling, swallowing, or whatever, and really done an amazing job for four years of quelling the racist energy in the room, and in the country, and not reacting to it with hostility. with as much power as the US presidency still affords, i likely would be very tempted to really use it to go off on those who really need a self-importance/privilege attitude adjustment, were the stakes not so amazingly high. despite overt racism, both direct and indirect. perhaps his doctor prescribes good medications that help him to remain so patient, but perhaps he really has an astounding ability to remain under control in the face of the ongoing overt (and underlying) racism....
back to my point, eastwood's words are ironic. because without speaking them, he created a sea-change, by crossing a boundary, and creating a new atmosphere -- a paradigm shift. clint eastwood spoke on behalf of a black man, putting angry vulgar words into his mouth. those words, if they actually existed, would be a fair reflection to white americans who insist on maintaining their privilege.
for too long, the fevered pitch has had an underlying assumption and concern: "obama, a black man, cannot actually be our equal or better. we cannot allow it."
then again, i'm a fellow white man. others may see it differently, and they're free to do so and voice their opinions, if this is a democracy worthy of an open democratic media, allowing for conscience to be spoken from a multi-cultural post-modern subjective-experience-acknowledging perspective.
but again, maybe eastwood was just acting. he's been a good actor. maybe he was taking advantage of the opportunity to say what needed to be said, so we can move on to the next stage of human relations. if that's the case, thanks clint.
to close: clint, what is the best thing you can say about your candidate, that is true?
also, here is another opinion from Jamil Smith about this. as i continue to hone this sermon, i want to go back to it.
lyrics: "fine, i'll play my song when you're not around. you only want to hear your song. and you won't know me as you might."
colors: red, white, black and blue
mood: solemn
chant/prayer/mantra: may there be peace within all peoples, and may the glory of love fill all the earth.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
also, here is another opinion from Jamil Smith about this. as i continue to hone this sermon, i want to go back to it.
lyrics: "fine, i'll play my song when you're not around. you only want to hear your song. and you won't know me as you might."
colors: red, white, black and blue
mood: solemn
chant/prayer/mantra: may there be peace within all peoples, and may the glory of love fill all the earth.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
ps - i am being climbed on by my son right now, trying to get my attention. in order to post this important missive. he wants me to look at pictures of tree-houses. he is three and a half. it hurts to be disregarding him. but he does need to learn the value of giving me ten minutes of downtime.
pps - now its later and we got a chance to play airplane and helicopter and read a book together.
Labels: anti-oppression, oppression, paradigm shift, racism, sermons
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Two things to read
America is a second world nation. We have no universal free health care (don't kid yourself about the plan underway), no guarantee of anything really, except competitive struggle with one another for work and money and career status, if you are one of those conditioned to think of your job and feudal debt enslavement as a "career." High infant mortality rates, abysmal educational scores, poor diet, no national public transportation system, crumbling infrastructure, a collapsed economy, even by our own definition we are a second world nation.
In serious, intelligent people, experiencing non-manufactured reality usually gives lifelong meaning and insight to the work.
Labels: anti-oppression, Capitalism, indifferent corporations, media, oppression, personal bookmarks, personal growth, politics, salvation, theological sources, USA
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Quick list of industries that would fight against cannabis legalization
.
- Alcohol and Tobacco companies (competing recreational interests)
- Pharmaceutical companies (competing medicinal interests -- they try to derive Marinol, which is only THC)
- Corn-Ethanol producers (competing with hemp, when hemp can create much more oil/acre)
- Oil companies (competing with hemp oil when it's easy to grow, compared to difficult to extract)
- Cotton and other textiles industries (hemp lasts longer, doesn't shrink, easier to produce)
- Timber (hemp can be made into paper and similar products, plus can be grown much more quickly than trees)
- Agribusiness support such as Monsanto (hemp grows SO easily and doesn't require special seeds. it's more nutritious and the seeds in cereals, etc, have more fiber)
- Law enforcement (as long as hemp and cannabis are illegal, there is definite job security)
- Prison industry, including the privately-run prisons (1% of US population in prison, over half that non-violent drug users..., and the prisons get paid per prisoner)
- The military supply industry, and also many corporations such as Target Stores, Microsoft, Motorola, etc, because "Hey, prison labor is dirt cheap!"
- Politicians whose bases believe the rhetoric. They fear that if they stand up against prohibition, they will be voted out.
- Drug cartels in Mexico and the US, which make tons of money because everything they do is under the table, and they get paid a ton compared to what their product would cost if it were legal.
- Cannabis growing farms for dispensaries, and all of the niches that have sprung up as a result of the "pseudo-legality" of Cannabis, such as pot-docs, ID card places, and dispensaries. With legalization, they would have to compete in a much tighter market, and the jobs of pot-docs and ID card manufacturers would dissolve. And good riddance.
pax hominibus,agape to all,joel
Labels: changing the prison paradigm, drug war, economics, indifferent corporations, oppression
Thursday, October 22, 2009
US Debt Clock
.
Check out this link, and you can see how much the US owes and has in assets, both in the government and held privately. There's a lot more I'd like to see this page become, as it doesn't tell the whole story yet. I'm going to also put a link to this on the column at the left.
There's a lot of interpretation that can be done just from this data, but I'm not going to do that right now. There are a few important numbers to look at however.
1. Note the Gross Domestic Product (upper right), and compare to the US Budget Deficit (YTD, upper-left) and the interest on Debt (upper left, a little lower). When the interest on debt grows too large, it is a drain on the economy, in that it cuts into the government's ability to pay for other programs. Who do we owe all that principal and interest to?
2. The largest (by a factor of 30!) number on the page is Currency and Credit Derivates ($589.232284 trillion at 1:30 on Oct 22). This is the fabricated money partially responsible for the big trouble we are in. I am surprised to see that it is going down, and wonder what that actually means. Is somebody actually trying to regulate this, or is this currency being pulled off the market.
3. In many of these numbers, it's not simply the numbers that are important to watch, but the rate of change of the numbers, and the rate of change of that change (the acceleration).
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Check out this link, and you can see how much the US owes and has in assets, both in the government and held privately. There's a lot more I'd like to see this page become, as it doesn't tell the whole story yet. I'm going to also put a link to this on the column at the left.
There's a lot of interpretation that can be done just from this data, but I'm not going to do that right now. There are a few important numbers to look at however.
1. Note the Gross Domestic Product (upper right), and compare to the US Budget Deficit (YTD, upper-left) and the interest on Debt (upper left, a little lower). When the interest on debt grows too large, it is a drain on the economy, in that it cuts into the government's ability to pay for other programs. Who do we owe all that principal and interest to?
2. The largest (by a factor of 30!) number on the page is Currency and Credit Derivates ($589.232284 trillion at 1:30 on Oct 22). This is the fabricated money partially responsible for the big trouble we are in. I am surprised to see that it is going down, and wonder what that actually means. Is somebody actually trying to regulate this, or is this currency being pulled off the market.
3. In many of these numbers, it's not simply the numbers that are important to watch, but the rate of change of the numbers, and the rate of change of that change (the acceleration).
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: Capitalism, classism, economics, globalism, indifferent corporations, oppression, personal bookmarks, politics, theological sources, USA
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
No loitering, for birds, or people
If you click-thru and look closely, you can see the little sharp wiry things to keep the birds from perching on this ledge about ten feet up. On this side of the block in the Tenderloin, there is nothing except this building with its alternating grey and beige stone. No doors, no windows, and a barren sidewalk. And several of these "No loitering" signs.
Labels: homelessness, indifferent corporations, oppression
Sunday, September 27, 2009
G-20, and Carl Sagan Video
.
First, I've been a little heads-down getting my sermon ready for today. And now I'm seeing the news that a "non-lethal sonic cannon" was used against protesters/rioters in Pittsburgh at the G-20 meeting. This is the first time such a device was used by government forces against people within our own boundaries. It was used not against peaceful protesters, but against rioters. As a device used within these parameters, its non-lethality may have saved lives, but a device like this SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY.
The problem, as noted in the commentary on this article, is that the attendees at the G20 are not representative of the people. This is most definitely NOT common ground. It is the upper-most echelon of wealth determining where and how to deploy resources, with little attention to local movements, or to the states of poverty in the world. The problem is that there are people who WANT to riot. To suppress the riots is only a solution if you already have your main goal mapped out, and that goal does not include the will of the people. In the end, the effective solution will be to make sure that everyone (regardless of race, class, or nationality) has real voice/representation and truly get an adequate piece of the economic pie.
As the world population continues to grow, while our resources (especially the ability to feed ourselves and provide clean water) diminish, the riots will continue and escalate, unless the leaders exhibit real leadership embodying the will of the people and serving their needs, not the needs of those who seek to amass wealth.
There is no shortage of money. There are still enough resources to go around, and certainly MORE THAN ENOUGH LABOR to go around. The important thing is that those who make decisions that affect massive numbers of people (CEO's, business leaders, G20 participants) use the resources justly and effectively. None of my senses tell me that is happening on their part. Until the leaders do that, or the unwilling followers can successfully break from them, the world will be frustrated, and we'll have no glory, no justice, no liberation, and no peace.
Here's the awesome Carl Sagan video, and this great quote:
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
lyrics: "The simplest thought, like the concept of the number 1, has an elaborate logical underpinning. The brain has its own language for testing the structure and consistency of the world." - Carl Sagan
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
First, I've been a little heads-down getting my sermon ready for today. And now I'm seeing the news that a "non-lethal sonic cannon" was used against protesters/rioters in Pittsburgh at the G-20 meeting. This is the first time such a device was used by government forces against people within our own boundaries. It was used not against peaceful protesters, but against rioters. As a device used within these parameters, its non-lethality may have saved lives, but a device like this SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY.
The problem, as noted in the commentary on this article, is that the attendees at the G20 are not representative of the people. This is most definitely NOT common ground. It is the upper-most echelon of wealth determining where and how to deploy resources, with little attention to local movements, or to the states of poverty in the world. The problem is that there are people who WANT to riot. To suppress the riots is only a solution if you already have your main goal mapped out, and that goal does not include the will of the people. In the end, the effective solution will be to make sure that everyone (regardless of race, class, or nationality) has real voice/representation and truly get an adequate piece of the economic pie.
As the world population continues to grow, while our resources (especially the ability to feed ourselves and provide clean water) diminish, the riots will continue and escalate, unless the leaders exhibit real leadership embodying the will of the people and serving their needs, not the needs of those who seek to amass wealth.
There is no shortage of money. There are still enough resources to go around, and certainly MORE THAN ENOUGH LABOR to go around. The important thing is that those who make decisions that affect massive numbers of people (CEO's, business leaders, G20 participants) use the resources justly and effectively. None of my senses tell me that is happening on their part. Until the leaders do that, or the unwilling followers can successfully break from them, the world will be frustrated, and we'll have no glory, no justice, no liberation, and no peace.
Here's the awesome Carl Sagan video, and this great quote:
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
lyrics: "The simplest thought, like the concept of the number 1, has an elaborate logical underpinning. The brain has its own language for testing the structure and consistency of the world." - Carl Sagan
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: astrophysics, Book of Romans, Capitalism, economics, globalism, oppression
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Race, Size, and Obama's Surgeon General Nominee
.
This article from racewire.org says a lot, and I recommend it for every reader of this blog. Dr. Regina Benjamin is more than qualified for the job of surgeon general, yet there are people who will find any angle they can to discredit her (or any Obama nominee, naturally).
While I have several bones to pick with Obama about the lack of real change he seems to be bringing with respect to many important issues, it is heartening and refreshing to see Sonia Sotomayor being confirmed today, and the nomination of Ms. Benjamin. There certainly does need to be more representation for people of color in the US halls of power, and the jury is still out (no pun intended), on how quickly our representatives will actually represent constituents of color as well. As an aside, how many senators of color are there presently in the USA, and in its history?
IMO, if the push for universal health care in the US fails, the blame falls not on Obama, but on all those playing for powerful vested interests in keeping the status quo, even if it means the perpetuation of classism, racism, and size-ism. The current state of health care in the US is undeniably detrimental to our economy. Fixing our health care system is one critical element of getting the economy back up and running.
lyrics:
And until the color of a man's* skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes, there's a war.
- War, by Bob Marley
*#inc gender, size, perceived class, sexual orientation, etc
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
This article from racewire.org says a lot, and I recommend it for every reader of this blog. Dr. Regina Benjamin is more than qualified for the job of surgeon general, yet there are people who will find any angle they can to discredit her (or any Obama nominee, naturally).
While I have several bones to pick with Obama about the lack of real change he seems to be bringing with respect to many important issues, it is heartening and refreshing to see Sonia Sotomayor being confirmed today, and the nomination of Ms. Benjamin. There certainly does need to be more representation for people of color in the US halls of power, and the jury is still out (no pun intended), on how quickly our representatives will actually represent constituents of color as well. As an aside, how many senators of color are there presently in the USA, and in its history?
IMO, if the push for universal health care in the US fails, the blame falls not on Obama, but on all those playing for powerful vested interests in keeping the status quo, even if it means the perpetuation of classism, racism, and size-ism. The current state of health care in the US is undeniably detrimental to our economy. Fixing our health care system is one critical element of getting the economy back up and running.
lyrics:
And until the color of a man's* skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes, there's a war.
- War, by Bob Marley
*#inc gender, size, perceived class, sexual orientation, etc
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: BBWs, economics, oppression, politics, racism, universal health care
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Rolling Stone Article on the Truth Behind the Bank Bailouts
OMG, this article by Matt Taibbi just pushes me over the edge. I've been following all this stuff since I first heard of credit default swaps a couple years ago, but this article presents all the grisly details.
Here's two quotes that kind of sum up the situation (though they are not a summary of the article itself by any means) :
"...on the linear spectrum of capitalism to socialism, where exactly are we now? Is there a dictionary word that even describes what we are now? It would be funny, if it weren't such a nightmare."
"'Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?' But before you even finish saying that, they're rolling their eyes, because You Don't Get It. These people were never about anything except turning money into money, in order to get more money; valueswise they're on par with crack addicts...."
Either we can kiss the US capitalist system goodbye, or all the common people will be wage slaves working (if they are lucky) for those who are now in the process of outright stealing trillions from the US treasury and the Federal Reserve through a non-transparent process.
It makes me think of Henry Potter, when I hear about the big banks getting access to the TARP loans and other loans, and all the regional and small banks that were much more judicious about their lending practices have not gotten any money yet? Shame on the federal reserve and the US treasury, and everyone who let it get this bad.
lyrics: "We feed the cats to the rats, and the rats to the cats, and get the cat skins for nothing!"
lyrics: "We feed the cats to the rats, and the rats to the cats, and get the cat skins for nothing!"
From How to Skin a Cat, by Husker Du
colors: Black and Red. Mostly red. Not sure whether blood red, or red ink. Or blood used as red ink.
mood: Nervous.
chant/prayer/mantra: For a return to humanity's wholeness, and not this separateness.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
colors: Black and Red. Mostly red. Not sure whether blood red, or red ink. Or blood used as red ink.
mood: Nervous.
chant/prayer/mantra: For a return to humanity's wholeness, and not this separateness.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: classism, economics, freedom versus freedom, indifferent corporations, oppression, theological sources, USA
Friday, March 27, 2009
Obama on Marijuana Legalization and the Economy?
.
lyrics: "I think you missed the point! Arresting for a joint?"
So, today on the nation's first online question and answer session with President Obama, he took the time to address a question related to an issue that matters to many Americans.
His exact words were:
We took votes about which questions were going to be asked, and I think 3 million people voted, or 3.5 million voted.I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy [note: the live in-studio audience all starts chuckling at this point], and job creation, and ah -- I don't know what this says about the online audience, but I just want -- I don't want people to think that ah -- this was a fairly popular question -- and we want to make sure that it was answered.The answer is 'No, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy.'
And here is a link to the actual questions,* and not Obama's paraphrasing of it. Wow, there is a lot that could be said regarding this. It's late, and I'm going to bed soon, so I'll only say about half of it, and I'm going to be sloppy about citing sources (sorry). If you want the information, it's out there at the few links I will be providing.
First, it is great that he is having online question and answer sessions, to address questions that a plurality of Americans want to know about. As evidenced by the Bush administration's method of hand-picking reporters allowed into the reporter room, and heavily penalizing those who don't ask appropriate slow-pitch softball style questions, Obama could get through the presidency without doing this.
Second, honestly there are much more important issues in the United States to deal with than marijuana reform. There are wars to end and peace to begin, there are homeless and hungry and unemployed people. There are civil rights to be won for those in the LGBT community, and civil rights to be secured for people of color, and for immigrants. There are environmental issues that need addressing, and medical care for all. The list goes on and on.
But, as was evidenced during that brief stint when John McCain wanted to pull out of the debates because of the "Emergency Bail Out" bill (that gave all that money to banks that had greedily overleveraged themselves out of any semblance of fiscal balance), a good president needs to be able to handle more than one thing at once. Therefore in addition to the things mentioned above, President Obama should devote some of his time in office ending the "drug war" and reforming national policy regarding marijuana. Despite the difficulty of his answer today, I still believe that a decriminalization of marijuana is one among many of the "change we can believe in."
Third, I believe the audience was laughing partially from their own lack of comfort with this now-apparently-taboo topic, and also because to those who have not been on the front lines of the drug war, there is no context in which marijuana legalization actually makes sense, because there is no conversation or thought about it. Therefore the idea of legalization or decriminalization in order to boost the economy sounds like a tricky joke or something. But that question was indeed asked in earnest. Because MILLIONS of American lives depend on it. There are now millions of Americans who have been arrested for drug possession, and it affects their employability and their family life, and if they go to jail or prison, is a major DRAIN on the economy. Especially when prison or jail is NOT even an ethical answer for non-violent behavior. Those people could be working and paying money into the tax pool, rather than having their lives ruined behind bars while the prison system takes money out of the tax pool.
So, fourth, yes, there would be billions of dollars saved by eliminating the war on drugs*, so our taxes could go towards other things, instead of going toward: DEA raids on licensed medical cannabis dispensaries; state and federal prison population of non-violent drug offenders multiplied by $30k per prisoner; and toward militarized anti-drug operations at home and abroad, which have a way of smudging the lines and becoming dangerously close to military operations. So the above money could go toward other things. After all, it's not as if THIRTY YEARS of the drug war has really made much of a difference in anything other than us having less money, more people in prison, more racial discrimination, and pretty much the same amount of people trying drugs.
*note that this link is to a petition created by Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman and signed by hundreds of economists
*note that this link is to a petition created by Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman and signed by hundreds of economists
Fifth, there would be billions of dollars earned by legalizing and taxing marijuana. There is no doubt in this. That money could go toward honest education programs, and toward drug (and alcohol) counseling. Instead of billions of dollars going toward armed drug cartels who are also bringing cocaine and heroin into our country, there would be a new sector of the economy. Compared to 700 billion dollars, it wouldn't be much, but then what does compare to 700 billion dollars, except for the entirety of the banking industry?
Sixth, even though it would help the economy, why should legalization/decriminalization be based on whether it would help grow the economy? Why make a decision such as this based on whether it would grow the economy when there are far more compelling reasons? For Christ's sake (and I do mean that literally), is the US now going to make ALL of its decisions based on whether there is money to be had? I DETEST that. I LOATHE that. I DESPISE that backward/myopic-principled way of thinking. It needs to be ushered to the exit door.
Seventh, here are some other reasons for decriminalization/legalization.
- There really are people who are finding a variety of medical benefits from marijuana, and reliable studies have even verified this.
- There are people whose lives are being destroyed, not by marijuana use directly, but by a penal system which follows biased and outdated ideologies, damning to jail those who use and distribute it.
- Marijuana has been shown to be far less harmful to people than alcohol or tobacco, but those are legal, regulated, and (heavily) taxed. Simply put, that is double-think.
- The drug war is class and race war -- blacks and latino/as are disproportionately represented among those who are put in prison (according to mandatory minimum sentences, even!) as a result of non-violent drug offenses.
- Marijuana plants produce a lot of oxygen -- the planet needs more oxygen NOW, and these can grow a lot faster than forests (of course I would also recommend reforestation ASAP as well).
- Finally, there is the issue of personal freedom to do as we choose. The United States has long been touted as "the land of the free." The war on drugs, coupled with peoples' continued desire to use them is a strong test against that notion -- because of prohibition, people are not free at all to use cannabis. Every argument I've heard from proponents for restriction on this freedom are either arbitrary or circular, frequently pointing to the illegality as the reason for itself.
Eighth, here are some things that hinder decriminalization/legalization, mainly corporate interests -- a few of which may have helped to get Obama into office. :(
- The pharmaceutical industry doesn't want people to be able to grow their own pain relief.
- If marijuana is legalized, there will be massive amounts of hemp fiber available for everything from clothing to rope, to sheets, to paper, to cooking oil, to insulation, to biodegradable plastics.
- The tobacco, alcohol, and coffee industries don't want to have to give up their corner on the recreational drug market.
- The prison and corrections industry has been enjoying a real boom lately, and the big box stores who hire prison labor at slavery wages also enjoy having locked-up non-violent drug offenders to help with their profit margins.** We, as shoppers, should take very careful heed of from where we buy our products.
- Drug traffickers and dealers, despite the possibilities of getting caught, enjoy the immense profit they can make when they sell plants at 100x their natural cost to produce.
- And V.P. Joe Biden and Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel have both been fairly well linked to -- and supportive of -- the war on drugs in the past.
My hope against hope, is that Obama, being the incredibly intelligent man that he is, is biding his time and waiting for the context to be ripe to introduce this. Decriminalization or legalization of marijuana is one of the many things that he needs to get done during his tenure in office. And if he is planning to wait until his second term to do this, it would certainly be a shame if he doesn't get re-elected, or ends up with a cantankerous Republican congress to deal in the future. The best time to do this is in the next two years.
*From http://www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions, it appears that in 4 different categories, the questions about marijuana legalization were in the top ten most voted for the following constructed categories (I copy them here because information on the Internet has a way of vanishing overnight):
Health Care Reform (2 of top 10)
"Why is marijuana still illegal? Cigarettes and alcohol are far more harmful, and with the taxes put on the legal distribution of marijuana the US could make millions" Ben R, Washington, DC
"As a person with Multiple Sclerosis, I have many other MS friends who use marijuana just to feel some relief from their bodies. When can pressure be placed to reclassify Cannabis from a Schedule 1 drug (no medical benefit) to Schedule 5?" Marcia, Texas
Green Jobs and Energy (the top 2!)
""Will you consider decriminalizing the recreational/medical use of marijuana(hemp) so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and a multi-billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”" Green Machine, Winchester,VA
"Has your administration given any serious thought to how legalizing marijuana could help solve the economic crisis? We could tax this green product and create an influx of cash while reducing violence created by the war of drugs & illegal trafficking" Ashley, Brooklyn, NY
Financial Stability (the top 4!)
"Would you support the bill currently going through the California legislation to legalize and tax marijuana, boosting the economy and reducing drug cartel related violence?" Anthony, Warrington, PA
"Has the administration given any thought to legalizing marijuana, as a cash crop to fuel the economy? Why not make available, regulate, and tax something that that about 10 million Americans use regularly and is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol." Sarah, Atlanta, GA
"Growing up I have noticed many around me always talk about legalization of marijuana, and I always thought, why not put a tax stamp on it. If marijuana was legalized it could really change a lot of things. America had the same problem with Alcohol." Peter McNamara, Minneapolis, MN
"Could legalizing marijuana and laying a tax on it, given restriction allow the government make back some of the glaring debt considering it's inelasticity and the history of economics of prohibition?" Andy Drake, New Brunswick, NJ
Jobs (2 of the top ten)
"What are your plans for the failing, "War on Drugs", thats sucking money from tax payers and putting non-violent people in prison longer than the violent criminals?" Matt B, West Bend, WI
"President Obama, Do you plan on letting Science end the failed "War" on Marijuana for personal and medical use thus taking the strain of our prisons and police forces so that we no longer have to arrest over 800,000 non violent drug offenders?" Phill, Georgetown,MA
Budget (the top 7!)
"With over 1 out of 30 Americans controlled by the penal system, why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the failed war on drugs into a money making, money saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?" Ryan Palmer, Dallas, TX
"Mr. Obama, Thank you for allowing us to ask our questions to you, unfiltered. What is your stance on legalizing marijuana federally, taxing it and regulating much like alcohol and tobacco? I believe that the Drug War has failed, and needs overhaul." Brian, Minneapolis, MN
"I am not a marijuana user, but I do believe that making marijuana legal could provide some relief as to it could be heavily taxed and regulated. Legalization of marijuana will also be a detriment to the drug cartels in Latin America." Ryan McLaughlin, Rindge, NH / Quakertown, PA
"Have you considered legalizing marijuana and taxing/regulating it like alcohol? Marijuana is America's largest cash crop. The tax revenue from marijuana sales would provide a massive source of new revenue and cut the insane costs of the "Drug War."" Matt S, Huntsville, AL
"Mr. President, we the people continue to ask you this general question, please do not fail to respond: Will you allow science and common sense to reign and end this failed WAR ON DRUGS starting with the legalization and taxation of Marijuana?" Mark B, Sterling,VA
"Should the recreational use of marijuana be legalized and taxed if it will help California reduce its budget deficit? How will you and the federal government respond if such a law is passed by the California legislature?" JHawk, Santa Barbara, CA
"Are you willing to seriously consider the idea of curtailing the failed & expensive drug war in favor of a fair, responsible policy of decriminalization? With Mexican gangs, drug-related disease, & addicition going unchecked we need another solution." T.Kapanka, San Francisco, CA
That's a lot of questions (17 out of the top 110 questions), and I imagine that they got spread out across all of those categories because among the available categories, none of them seemed to jump out easily a social policy reform, or prison reform, or marijuana reform. Funny how lack of a category for something can be a form of inhibiting conversation about it, or making it seem awkwardly shoe-horned in. In retrospect, it's no wonder that the economic angle is where the question was built on that Obama chose to answer. After reading all these questions, I find it so sad that he ended up simply answering, "No," and it really is kind of infuriating that he was so cavalier and jocular about it.
**Here's an interesting/mortifying tidbit regarding humanity's propensity to enforce slave labor that I learned in a book I am reading for my Prisons and Punishment class (from page 39) -- "In the South, after the Civil War, former slaves were sentenced to prison and then leased out by the prison to work for local plantation owners."
-F***king Hostile, by Pantera
colors: Red, White, Blue, Green
mood: Sleepy
chant/prayer/mantra: May the world get back to nature one day. And not the hard way.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
colors: Red, White, Blue, Green
mood: Sleepy
chant/prayer/mantra: May the world get back to nature one day. And not the hard way.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Edit on March 29, 2009: Several people have stepped up and spoken out against Barack Obama's flippancy on the answer, including this heart-rending case study and this real-life case study about how serious marijuana legalization is as an issue, regarding medical treatment. In this post, the question is posed as to why Cannabis is still listed as a schedule one drug, when all indications are that it should be listed in a less dangerous class (in other words, it does not have a high potential for abuse, it is considered medically significant in several states, and 'safety for medical use' is not an issue), and recommends that the Attorney General could do so immediately.
And this question directed at Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, all three of whom have admitted to using drugs in the past and were not give the same treatment as the victims in the war on drugs. And there's this post by Dan Sweeney, where he makes some cogent arguments parallel to mine, but perhaps more focused and better worded.
And here is the Obama administration's earlier response to questions on the Internet about marijuana legalization: On 12/15/08, "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana." What exactly does that mean? It means that they crafted that answer specifically not to say that he is opposed to it. It also does not say that he is not in favor of the currently criminalized state of marijuana, and it also does not say whether or not he is in favor of decriminalization of marijuana. A subtle difference, but if we recall the context of Washington politics, one of our recent past presidents tried to redefine the meaning of "is," and another tried to redefine the meaning of "mission accomplished," so something like this wouldn't be out of the ken of possibility.
Also, Nirvana's Krist Novoselic weighed in on the co-op model used for cannabis clubs, and how a similar model could be used for health care. Good job thinking outside the box there.
It's interesting to note that in 1972, the editors for Consumer Reports magazine did a wide review of histories and effects of various drugs, including Cannabis.
And to close, here's a beauty from Italy. A lonesome shepherd should be allowed marijuana for personal use, because he's out in nature all alone with his sheep.
Labels: anti-oppression, changing the prison paradigm, coursework, drug war, economics, oppression, personal bookmarks, politics, USA
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Barack the Magic Negro? Really???
FWIW, I am writing this post as a sort of bookmark in life, with the hope that this kind of scenario finally goes the way of the dodo bird....
+++
So, one of the candidates for RNC chairman decided it was a good idea to send around a CD to his cohort with a song in which a Rush Limbaugh songwriter (a white guy) pretends to be Al Sharpton being dismayed about how Barack Obama has more appeal than him. Additionally, there's other hits like "The Star Spanglish Banner." Ugh.
In the first place, the Magic Negro song itself (originally released about eighteen months ago with plenty of Rush Limbaugh airplay) is disgusting. In the second place, it tries to put words in Al Sharpton's mouth, and seems to try and stir up or present discord among the leadership in the black community/communities, which is disgusting on a different level. And in the third place, it's even uglier that even after the election, instead of realizing that white racism is one of the reasons that republicans lost the presidential election, and that maybe they could do something to work toward right (no pun intended) relationship with communities of color, someone would think a racist mixed CD would be a good way to build community.
To me, one of the biggest problems here is that a person (a white person in this case) is afforded a voice in the mass media, and is using that voice to ostensibly speak from and to the black community, trying to insert something into the story. I loathe when people try to tell my story for me or about others. But when they do, I ask two questions: 1) What story are they trying to tell? and 2) How close is it to the ultimate reality? And now I will start developing a habit of asking a third question: 3) WHY are they telling this story?
Why would Rush Limbaugh tell a story about Al Sharpton and Barack Obama on his show? "To try to define the context and then influence opinion," is my initial guess, but I'm sure there are other reasons if we look more deeply.
What story are the originators of this song trying to tell? That Barack is a Magic Negro, supposedly. First, that he fits into a racialized category of their definition/agreement. And then, that by "Magic" they mean he's the black man that all the white folks can feel OK about. And then, that Al Sharpton is upset, and would call Barack out for not being the same kind of black man that he is. I really wonder how Al Sharpton responds to this video, but have been unable to find that in searches yet.
And finally, how close is this story to the truth? Well, if it had actually come from Al Sharpton's mouth, it would have more credibility, but considering the sources, it's quite apparently fabricated. People who fabricate things, and tell other people's stories for them should have their access to the mass media cut back accordingly, but apparently, Rush has friends who let him keep on keeping on.
Now regarding Chip Saltsman, the racist CD-mixer, who tries to continue propagating that story... What story is he telling, how close is it to the truth, and why is he telling it?
Here's the story I tell about him, though I would really love to hear it from his own mouth: What story is he telling? That it's OK, in fact it's appropriate, to send around a CD with songs like this, as some token of unity. How close to the truth? Probably not very, except in the limited community who already buys into overt bigotry and propaganda that continues to put it out there. Why does he tell the story? To try and remind/convince himself and others in his group that things are not changing, and that white people are still inherently better.
I would hope that my story is off-base, and welcome a response to tell the real story. Until then, I'd also offer another story for Chip to tell: The story he's telling is that he's out of touch. That naming this act "out of touch" is pretty close to the truth. And that he's telling the story so that someone will come and offer some assistance, so he and his friends can learn to be in right relationship with others beyond their cohort, with others within the cohort, and with themselves, and the stories they tell about themselves.
It would be great if those further along toward building a beloved and harmonious community could just do a magic FTFY for them, but it seems there is still a part of humanity who will choose to (or be unable to do other than) learn this the hard way, and hopefully in the meantime, other people with more consolidational values will gain grounding and connection in the effort to making justice happen.
lyrics: Not from that song!
colors: united
mood: a whole laundry list of stuff to do
chant/prayer/mantra: energy, friends, prayer, dream
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
+++
So, one of the candidates for RNC chairman decided it was a good idea to send around a CD to his cohort with a song in which a Rush Limbaugh songwriter (a white guy) pretends to be Al Sharpton being dismayed about how Barack Obama has more appeal than him. Additionally, there's other hits like "The Star Spanglish Banner." Ugh.
In the first place, the Magic Negro song itself (originally released about eighteen months ago with plenty of Rush Limbaugh airplay) is disgusting. In the second place, it tries to put words in Al Sharpton's mouth, and seems to try and stir up or present discord among the leadership in the black community/communities, which is disgusting on a different level. And in the third place, it's even uglier that even after the election, instead of realizing that white racism is one of the reasons that republicans lost the presidential election, and that maybe they could do something to work toward right (no pun intended) relationship with communities of color, someone would think a racist mixed CD would be a good way to build community.
To me, one of the biggest problems here is that a person (a white person in this case) is afforded a voice in the mass media, and is using that voice to ostensibly speak from and to the black community, trying to insert something into the story. I loathe when people try to tell my story for me or about others. But when they do, I ask two questions: 1) What story are they trying to tell? and 2) How close is it to the ultimate reality? And now I will start developing a habit of asking a third question: 3) WHY are they telling this story?
Why would Rush Limbaugh tell a story about Al Sharpton and Barack Obama on his show? "To try to define the context and then influence opinion," is my initial guess, but I'm sure there are other reasons if we look more deeply.
What story are the originators of this song trying to tell? That Barack is a Magic Negro, supposedly. First, that he fits into a racialized category of their definition/agreement. And then, that by "Magic" they mean he's the black man that all the white folks can feel OK about. And then, that Al Sharpton is upset, and would call Barack out for not being the same kind of black man that he is. I really wonder how Al Sharpton responds to this video, but have been unable to find that in searches yet.
And finally, how close is this story to the truth? Well, if it had actually come from Al Sharpton's mouth, it would have more credibility, but considering the sources, it's quite apparently fabricated. People who fabricate things, and tell other people's stories for them should have their access to the mass media cut back accordingly, but apparently, Rush has friends who let him keep on keeping on.
Now regarding Chip Saltsman, the racist CD-mixer, who tries to continue propagating that story... What story is he telling, how close is it to the truth, and why is he telling it?
Here's the story I tell about him, though I would really love to hear it from his own mouth: What story is he telling? That it's OK, in fact it's appropriate, to send around a CD with songs like this, as some token of unity. How close to the truth? Probably not very, except in the limited community who already buys into overt bigotry and propaganda that continues to put it out there. Why does he tell the story? To try and remind/convince himself and others in his group that things are not changing, and that white people are still inherently better.
I would hope that my story is off-base, and welcome a response to tell the real story. Until then, I'd also offer another story for Chip to tell: The story he's telling is that he's out of touch. That naming this act "out of touch" is pretty close to the truth. And that he's telling the story so that someone will come and offer some assistance, so he and his friends can learn to be in right relationship with others beyond their cohort, with others within the cohort, and with themselves, and the stories they tell about themselves.
It would be great if those further along toward building a beloved and harmonious community could just do a magic FTFY for them, but it seems there is still a part of humanity who will choose to (or be unable to do other than) learn this the hard way, and hopefully in the meantime, other people with more consolidational values will gain grounding and connection in the effort to making justice happen.
lyrics: Not from that song!
colors: united
mood: a whole laundry list of stuff to do
chant/prayer/mantra: energy, friends, prayer, dream
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: anti-oppression, media, oppression, politics, racism
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Prop 8: Too Narrow a Focus
This evening I read a few different posts by people I've only recently become acquainted with, or know through other people.
It has come to my attention that there are people in the LGBT community who are pointing fingers of blame at communities of color, notably black folks, because there was a tendency among black and latino voters to vote yes on prop 8. Note that neither of these communities are monoliths, just as not all white people are John McCain or John Kerry supporters.
We really need to come together. REALLY. There is not time to wait on this. We've got to get together, and sit at the table and stay at the table. This includes those in the GLBT community, the black and Latino communities, women, anybody else who has experienced oppression, and allies of all stripes. My hope is that this present animosity is the beginning of a dialog that needs to happen. And I am hoping through communities coming together, this dialog can ride the fast track.
The media and the advertising, and the coordinated Yes on 8 effort by Mormons and the Catholic church are nearer to the root of this problem. And the problem has many roots, certainly. There are bigots in California, and in America. Bigoted by race, by sexual identity, sexual affinity, and many other dimensions. And there are people who were bamboozled by too many ads, or voted according to the way their church told them. I highly doubt that there were many people of color who voted out of spite or to "spread the oppression around." At the very least, that is cutting off one's nose to spite one's own face, since the LGBT community intersects with every culture in America (though some cultures try harder to push it back into the closet).
Here's an interesting thing: Among all the press coverage that prop 8 has gotten, does anybody know how Prop 9 turned out? Well, it passed. Prop 9 is one of those "get tough on crime" things that means a lot of money (from a fairly dry pool in CA) is going to go toward the prison system. As a person who speaks out on behalf of marginalized people in the prison system (many of whom are of color), I wonder why this hasn't received as much attention as Prop 8?
lyrics: "And as she turns the volume down, he's getting smaller with the sound..." Angie Baby, by Helen Reddy
colors: Get it together.
mood: Tired, distracted.
chant/prayer/mantra: For peace, and divine connection between us all. Amen.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
lyrics: "And as she turns the volume down, he's getting smaller with the sound..." Angie Baby, by Helen Reddy
colors: Get it together.
mood: Tired, distracted.
chant/prayer/mantra: For peace, and divine connection between us all. Amen.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: angry at organized religions, anti-oppression, changing the prison paradigm, LGBT, oppression, racism
