Monday, June 4, 2007

Pandering

My apologies for the absence. My intention is to start posting several times a week, but I really have been quite busy (writing encyclopedia entries, presenting at conferences, teaching, etc.)...and now I'm about to go on vacation. I will make more of an effort when I return. Because there are so many things to blog about. Such as....

Pandering

Happening to catch the Faith Politics program on CNN tonight, I was appalled. First of all, putting the Democratic candidates’ “faith to the test” is a) ridiculous, b) irrelevant, and c) frightening. I am already disgusted by the level of religious obsession and fanaticism in this country and in the world…now enough people in this country want to put religion on trial for each and every POLITICAL candidate. Does anyone else understand how twisted and wrong this is? Good God. I actually watched Soledad O’Brien ask Sen. John Edwards what his biggest sin to date is. What is the man supposed to say? “Oh, well, I killed someone. Sorry.” Are we really supposed to believe his response? Did Soledad really expect to get a truthful answer? Come on!

How many times a day does Hillary Clinton pray? Who gives a good goddamn?! A person’s faith or religion should be SEPARATE from his or her public life and policy making. Period. It is very simple. Separation of church and state. This type of program on CNN is a harbinger of dangerous times to come if this becomes the norm and we collectively accept the destruction of this saving principle – the separation of church and state.

All this “Faith Politics” is simplistic pandering to the masses of unquestioning sheep who put their faith in their religion above everything and everyone. None of these politicians who is running for president tells the truth. I don’t believe any of them. They get up on stage and talk in sound bites – clean, planned, manipulative sound bites. Both parties. In order to pander. And get good publicity. The days of decent people truly believing they can make a difference (for everyone, not just persons of a certain "faith") are long gone.

Faith should be a personal issue - not a matter of a certain group dictating how much faith needs to be "injected" into policy. Faith and morality are NOT necessarily synonymous. Faith is becoming a political tool. Am I really the only one terrified by that? And now the major news media is playing the worst pandering game of all – they are using religion ("faith") and allowing politicians to use religion as a selling point for votes.

Disgusting.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Free air...free fear

I don't know what is worse. The fact that we must now pay for tire air for our gas-guzzling, inefficient automobiles...or that I have actually been PAYING for said air. I feel such the fool. Today that ended. I went to AutoZone and purchased a small, $16 air compressor. Humph. Now I can have all the air I want...even on the road. It will only take 16 tire inflations to make this little baby start paying for itself in free air. A wise investment has been made...may I suggest you do the same?

Free air. What a concept. We breathe it. We use it to inflate tires. Politicians abuse it. Land of the free. Where apparently fear is all the rage and just as "free" as the air.

Why are so many people so afraid of change? Specifically, change related to positive environmental changes? Yes, I just watched An Inconvenient Truth (finally), and have come to the realization that the only people who find it "preachy" must be those who are insanely resistant to its message. The facts and science presented in the movie are all in the public domain for our perusal...so why are so many people angry at the suggestion that perhaps we are decadent, inefficient, selfish bastards who might want to make a few minor changes for our and everyone's benefit?

Political will. Gore mentions this more than once. And I distinctly recall this phrase coming out of my own mouth a couple weeks ago when explaining the disaster that is Social Security to my students...who had no idea how SS worked OR why it is a problem. After I gave the brief overview, they were outraged...and now feel as helpless as I do, I'm sure. Back to the fear of the environment.

At the risk of devolving into a right-left blame game dichotomy, I will say that most of the accusations of "hoax" and "bullshit" are coming from the political conservative camp. Coincidence? No, because true conservatives are also capitalists...and the greatest myth surrounding positive environmental change is the mythical (and highly unlikely) destruction of business and the economy as we now know it. Business and the economy would just change. Change with different businesses, entrepreneurial opportunities, and yes, even investment opportunities. (And how about that all-powerful morality card? Is it MORAL to wantonly destroy a finite resource, like the earth?! What WOULD Jesus do? An exceedingly uncomfortable question, I'm sure.) The question, what if the destruction of the economy doesn't happen, is neither politic nor comfortable for many conservatives to answer. I'm thinking specifically of my dad and uncle and others I know who are attached at the hip to rhetorical vitriol of people like the illustrious racist, Rush Limbaugh. They say China spews more pollutants than us...which a) is not true and b) does not negate OUR responsibility. Since when does America wait for freakin' China to do something before we do? Good grief.

I like trees. I like rivers and oceans. I don't like ice. But I must say that the ice was the most compelling and eye-opening element of Gore's argument. Hard to argue with dozens of pictures of ice shelves and glaciers that are no longer there because they MELTED. Oh, this is so frustrating! How could anyone look at those pictures and say, "didn't happen," or "they'll come back," or "don't take away my SUV!" Grrrrr.

When WILL there be political will to stop fearing the environment? When our food supply starts diminishing? When Greenland partially melts for good and Key West is under water? I just don't understand what is so terrifying about a) change and b) helping the environment stay healthy. Why is this such a fearful task? Do corporate execs dislike their green, manicured lawns? Do politicians find trees and wildlife offensive? Do none of them like to breathe?

Money. The people at the top of the world's food chain have the most money and will die last, due to their vast personal resources...which is why they don't give a shit what happens to the rest of us. Least of all to the poorest elements of society...or, say, a forest. Or a species of animal or insect.

Think of it this way. If the environmental scientists (yes, ALL of them) are right, and we are headed for tragedy AND our government and corporations decide to act and make some small necessary changes, thus reducing our "carbon footprint," what will it cost? The result will be one of two options: things will stay the same or things will improve. On the other hand, if the scientists (yes, ALL of them) are right and we do nothing, things will either stay the same or get incredibly worse. Personally, I'd prefer the first option. But then, we do live in a country where the politicians seem to think that having the largest number of the most powerful nuclear weapons will somehow protect us from absolute destruction.

I admit I don't know what the answer is. I only know that it is becoming incredibly frustrating to be well-educated, well-read, well-studied...and realize there's not a damn thing I can do. If the oceans are going to heat up, if the storms will continue growing in size and strength, if the bees die off and reduce pollination worldwide...despite how adamantly I talk about it, encourage others to think about it, and vote for people who care about it...there is actually nothing I can do unless those in power deign to act.

Fear is as free as the air and just as easy to swallow. The hard thing is to close your mouth, open your eyes, ears, and brain, and realize that one of these is poison.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Freedom of the press = Illusion

After watching Idiocracy last night, I found myself craving a book. If you don't know the movie, it essentially argues that at our current rate of mindless television consumption, we will become raving idiots incapable of the most average and common sense decisions in about 500 years. Being a fan of TV, I found this supposition uncomfortable...but not wholly impossible. I also read. But how many people do you know who watch some TV and read a great deal? My guess would be...not many. Most people get all of their information, news, opinions, and data from the tube. People swallow what they're told without ever questioning the source...or asking, what's missing?

Which leads me to the freedom of the press. One of our valuable and guaranteed freedoms a la the First Amendment. But is the press still the fourth estate? Does the press still have the power to expose cheats, frauds, and bad guys? More importantly...if they do have the power...do they ever use it?

Watching the development of broadcast, internet, and print press for the past 20 years, and having first hand experience in print, leads me to some uncomfortable conclusions.

The press is no longer the powerful fourth estate of checks and balances on the "people in power." Why? Because they are controlled by huge multinational, multibillion-dollar corporations that, directly or indirectly, make it known what is safe to report on and what is not. Think about it. Who owns CNN? Who owns Fox News? Who owns the New York Times? The Washington Post? ABC and the other networks?

This is not the era of the mom-and-pop owned network. Furthermore, think about how these operations make money. Advertising. And WHO is advertising? Giant, multinational, multibillion-dollar corporations. Proctor and Gamble. Ford. Disney. Now put the two together. Essentially, corporation A who owns the network is making millions of dollars off of corporation B, who advertises their products on corporation A's network. What do you think would happen if an enterprising reporter had the gall to discover and then report on some nefariousness going on at corporation B? (Think, Enron.) Enron was not a pariah, an enigma of the corporate structure of our capitalist society. People who run these corporations are ALWAYS looking to cut corners and to make an extra buck. If you've never worked at a corporation, you're probably thinking, yeah right. Either trust me, go investigate it yourself, or work for a big corporation for awhile..say in the accounting department...and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Back to the question. Enterprising reporter uncovers massive nefariousness...reports on it without getting the approval of the editors and higher-ups (ie, the people with the advertising purse strings). What do you suppose would happen?

Allow me to interject a story here that may answer this question. When I was 25, I wrote a column of my own design called Renter Know-How for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Into the second year, it was becoming quite popular in a dead section of the paper, my editors were happy, readers felt like someone was on their side (in rental situations - I almost always took the renter's side in any landlord-renter dispute), and I was enjoying the regular gig of being an opinion columnist. One day, I got a letter from an angry and frightened woman - her mother was being evicted without the legal time limit notice or a legitimate reason. I called her up and got her story. One of the great benefits of my column was this ability to share amazing stories with the public...I was not wearing my "journalist" hat - this was my opinion column, so the same rules did not apply - related to "balance" (which is a farce half the time anyway). I sent the column in, exposing this poor woman's story and opining on the power of landlords.

My editor liked the column and ran it without changing anything. The very week it appeared, I got an email from that same editor saying I had to run an apology. Because the advertiser (the evicting property management) was threatening to pull their ads from the real estate section...because I didn't get their side of the story. Had I been wearing my "journalist" hat, full rules of balance apply and I absolutely should have gotten their side of the story. But I wasn't wearing that hat...and the editor knew it.

I refused, in my youthful optimism, I believed truth was more important than money.

That was my wake-up call. In the press, money trumps the truth. The editor ran a small apology tagging my next column (putting words in my mouth) and my column was summarily canceled. The advertiser won because money trumps the truth.

If that sort of thing happens in a half-million circulation daily paper in a mid-sized city, I guarantee it happens on a much larger scale at larger news outlets all over the world. Which means...if money trumps the truth, we the people are NOT getting the stories we should be getting. Because the purse-string folks are controlling WHAT we hear and read. Therefore, I don't trust anything I see on TV or in print - I'm always asking, what are they leaving out? What stories are getting buried because it might hurt some advertiser and hence, hurt the press outlet's bottom financial line?

Is this freedom of the press? In a word, no. How far off are we, then, from the disgusting, garbage-filled, world of stupidity presented in Idiocracy?

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Third party blues

Confession time. I am a Libertarian. Yes, it's true...my party has absolutely NO chance of winning the 2008 Presidential election. Sigh. But I won't grouse. If you want to know what Libertarians stand for (besides legalizing marijuana, sheesh), check out the party site: http://www.lp.org/

Third parties get a raw deal in this country. Myself, I think we need a strong third party to challenge the sick bird that controls politics (one wing red, one wing blue, sharing a diseased, misguided body).

But that's grousing. Ahem. I hope you will join me in watching the first Democratic Presidential candidate debate tonight on MSNBC - 6 - 7:30 pm central time. My dad (a STAUNCH conservative Republican die-hard) thinks the only idea that will come of this debate is "it's all George Bush's fault."

Not sure how sound or logical that is, but we shall see. For all the pomp and circumstance of the Dems taking over both Houses of Congress, they really haven't done much - they are treading the political lake, hoping not to screw up so they can increase their chances for electability in '08. Think about it. If they were to take a strong stand on ANYTHING, the Republicans and right-leaning media would tear them apart. And in this age of "one wrong move and you're toast" a la the Howard Dean scream, no politician (no matter HOW good their ideas) is going to want to stick his or her head on the chopping block.

Power begets more power begets more power. And on, and on, and on.

Meanwhile, we the people are waving our arms desperately from shore, hoping anyone will give a shit enough to send over the life raft. Better wages, better health insurance access, more affordable everything, more say in what our elected leaders do. Alas. This government has become a bloated, inefficient, cold, calculating robot (think Terminator) with one goal in mind - become more bloated.

Barack Obama impresses me immensely, but is he for real? And more importantly, if he is really a good man with useful ideas and a plan of action, can he withstand the bloated political machine that spits out good people into the garbage heap of history? We shall see.

If you are brave enough to suffer through the canned sound bite responses, the meaningless promises, the endless "hopeful" but toothless rhetoric, the plying of warm fuzzies to gain your emotional support, I hope you consider watching these debates.

And then join a third party. Encourage your friends to do so too. Think about it. The only way we the people can regain control over the government is to FORCE change. In our current system, our options are a) take over by violence or b) take over by voting...and we don't really win with a blue or red candidate because they're all in cahoots. (Yes, I said cahoots. With a straight face.) Nominating a strong, sensible third party candidate has forced the two big parties to re-evaluate themselves in the past...it can happen again.

I dream of the day...

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Time for a conversation about class

Of all the issues raised by the Virginia Tech massacre, there is one underlying issue that everyone seems to be ignoring. Class. The gunman's video, rambling and sometimes incoherent though it is, focuses on class - class differences, class expectations, class conflict.

Why is nobody talking about this? America's dirty little secret, eh? We have class tension in this country...and we are collectively in denial.

This tragedy is unforgivable and there is plenty of blame to go around - the gunman himself (of course), the university administration for their inaction, the girls who were stalked by this creep and then didn't press charges, the judge who declared Cho a danger to himself. But underlying all of this is class.

It is time we Americans started talking about class in a meaningful way. The rich very often do treat people differently if those people are not of the same socio-economic status. Why do we continually deny this? Every group or clique has its problems, but this really does seem to primarily be a trickle-down effect - and the wealthy are at the top causing the avalanche.

Of course there are generous-hearted philanthropists...but I'm talking about on high school and college campuses...the division, the pain, the detrimental isolation caused by rich kids who refuse to treat "lesser" people with basic consideration and humanity.

On top of everything else, our collective denial of class conflict among young people in this country is yet another tragic aspect of this event. But will anyone step to the plate and acknowledge it?

One solution to avert potential future problems of this magnitude might be kindness. Instead of being exclusive, try being inclusive. Talk to that kid who keeps to himself. Ask that quiet girl to go shopping or to lunch. Make an effort. I'm not suggesting this is the ONLY solution...but good Lord, it is a start.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

21st century consequences: Part 1

As an opening salvo to this blog, I intend to share some of my recent research on the state of African Americans and Native Americans in 21st century America. I have just begun to research this issue and am planning to attempt academic publication, but I also feel the need to share my findings with normal, everyday people on the off chance that it might inspire others to take even a small beneficial action. Hence, my plan is to incorporate ideas for action and potential solutions into future posts and I hope to inspire others to consider entering the conversation, suggesting solutions, and perhaps acting on them. One of the elements lacking in contemporary American society is action. We all like to talk a good game...but how often does that translate to tangible positive action with workable solutions? Not often enough.

This first entry introduces the Black Power Movement, the Black Panther Party, and the American Indian Movement from the perspective of the women who were involved in these movements. If you learn something new, I encourage you to investigate the history of these groups, learn more, and share that knowledge with others. (A small list of suggested reading can be found at the end of this post.) One of the sad results of my current research is the realization that too many people don't know about these groups - not as they really are. Rather, we are fed lies, such as "Members of the Black Panther Party were terrorists." I heard this - or something to this effect - recently on Fox News. Couldn't be farther from the truth. But too often, the truth is lost among fallacies and detrimental, fear-based rhetoric. Trust no one - least of all television and cable news channels. Don't even trust what I'm writing...always investigate and research for yourself.

Here we go - I hope you enjoy, learn something new, and please feel free to respond with your own ideas, comments, and knowledge! And thank you for visiting!

- Amanda

A View From Inside

Typically, when the Black Power Movement (BPM) and the American Indian Movement (AIM) are the subject of discourse, one reads about men, the male perspective, the male opinion. However, the women in these movements were powerful, opinionated, and strong. Consequently, their voices contribute acute observations from inside that allows for a broader perspective when considering the movements’ long-term ramifications. Mary Crow Dog, author of Lakota Woman and former AIM member, cites an “old Cheyenne saying: ‘A nation is not dead until the hearts of its women are on the ground.’”[i] Indeed, women are the heart of these two movements because they are the oppressed within an oppressed group. To be American Indian or African American and female in America in the late 1960s and early 1970s was to be in the ultimate position of struggle. To survive this position, or even thrive, succeed and inspire others, these women possessed strong hearts, great dignity, and wise words. According to Black Panther member Connie Matthews in a speech delivered at a Vietnam Moratorium demonstration in October 1969, “We have to understand that the struggle at this moment is a world struggle [. . .] the oppressed versus the oppressor.”[ii] These words find an echo in Huey Newton’s writings, Malcolm X’s speeches, and Amiri Baraka’s rhetoric. Lorelei DeCora Means writes about the secondary nature of womanhood to the main struggle in “Women of All Red Nations” in 1974: “Native women took on both traditional and activist roles: some cooked, some took care of children, and others marched, petitioned, occupied, and fought alongside their brothers to force the U.S. government to acknowledge its treaty obligations […] to open a new era of tribal self-determination and native rights.”[iii] Because of this gender equality of labor and purpose within AIM and the BPM, one could argue that women had just as much, if not more, at stake in this battle. Means continues,

We are American Indian women, in that order. We are oppressed, first and foremost, as American Indians, as peoples colonized by the United States of America, not as women. [. . .] Decolonization is the agenda, the whole agenda, and until it is accomplished it is the only agenda that counts for American Indians.[iv]

More than anyone else, women had the most to gain and to lose in this national and global struggle for economic, political, and cultural parity. Means’s words make a clear distinction between her fight and the larger women’s liberation movement. Unlike participants in the second wave feminist movement in the dominant American culture, Indian and black women’s homes, economic and political futures, and families were at stake.

In Joan Bird’s case, she joined the New York Black Panthers in 1968 after receiving a nursing degree and wanting more. She writes, “I needed and wanted to be fully aware of myself, the changing world, my people’s true identity and their roles in society and the need for us to unite if we are ever going to achieve any sort of power.”[v] The desire to learn about herself, the black community, and to assist in the fight for power drove Bird to embrace the Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program and become an active volunteer. Likewise, Afeni Shakur, a Black Panther Party member, epitomizes the resolve and passion required by women of color to thrive under multiple layers of oppression. In her letter from the New York Women’s House of Detention, Shakur writes,

We know that we are a colony, living under community imperialism. The U.S. that we see is not one of freedom, beauty, and wisdom, but of fear, terror, and hate. This is a nation of your laws, run by your police, and based on protecting your economic strength. The poor are politically, economically, and legally non-existent.[vi]

This colonization, imperialism, and division Shakur refers to finds echoes in Lorelei Means’s and Mary Crow Dog’s words, and can doubly apply to the underlying themes of the American Indian Movement.

Far from the grit of New York, on the other side of the country at the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota in 1971, Mary Crow Dog first encountered AIM at a powwow after the Sun Dance. She writes in retrospect, “I recognize now that movements get used up and the leaders get burned out quickly,” but at that time, as a “wild rebellious teenager,” Crow Dog was enthralled with the visual and verbal messages of AIM’s leaders.[vii] She recalls one Chippewa man who “spoke about genocide and sovereignty, about tribal leaders selling out and kissing ass—white man’s ass. […] He had himself wrapped up in an upside-down American flag, telling us that every star in this flag represented a state stolen from Indians.”[viii] One young man told Crow Dog, “‘We are AIM…American Indian Movement. We’re going to change things’.”[ix] Change was heralded by the vibrations of these puzzle pieces moving into place, with women staunchly supporting the fight for jobs, better health care, and decent housing for their families and communities. Crow Dog also acknowledges AIM’s explicit connection to the Black Power Movement: “We took some of our rhetoric from the blacks, who had started their movements before we did. Like them we were minorities, poor and discriminated against, but there were differences.”[x] Some of these differences are revealed when comparing the two groups’ written platforms. Despite some programmatic variations in themes, goals and actions, many aspects of the Black Power Movement and AIM were frighteningly similar, such as the effect each movement had on their own communities and the dominant white society. Crow Dog writes succinctly: “Some people loved AIM, some hated it, but nobody ignored it.”[xi] Indeed, the same can be said about the Black Power Movement and the Black Panther Party. Ultimately, without the support of each community’s women, these movements likely would not have lasted as long as they did or had the resulting impact on the shifting American landscape.



[i] Lakota Woman, p. 80

[ii] Black Panthers Speak, p. 154

[iii] Alvin M. Josephy Jr., Joane Nagel, & Troy Johnson eds. Red Power: The American Indians’ Fight for Freedom, University of Nebraska Press, 2nd edition 1999, p. 51

[iv] Red Power, p. 52

[v] Black Panthers Speak, p. 160

[vi] Black Panthers Speak, p. 162

[vii] Lakota Woman, p. 74

[viii] ibid, p. 75

[ix] ibid p. 75

[x] Lakota Woman, p. 77

[xi] ibid, p. 74


Suggested Reading:

Alvin M. Josephy Jr., Joane Nagel, & Troy Johnson eds. Red Power: The American Indians’ Fight for
Freedom
, University of Nebraska Press, 2nd edition 1999.

Baraka, Amiri. “Tokenism.” LeRoi Jones, HOME social essays. New York: William Morrow, 1966.

Crow Dog, Mary. Lakota Woman. New York: HarperPerennial, 1991.

Foner, Philip ed. The Black Panthers Speak. Orig. New York: HarperCollins,1970. Cambridge, MA: Da
Capo Press 2nd ed, 2002


(More suggestions will be made with each post)
Technorati Profile