August 7, 2010
The Economy, The Poor, and Our Responsibilities
Jack and Jill Politics embedded a fascinating interview with Dr. Cornel West:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I find it incredibly important to think deeply about Dr. West's message. It adds to the conversation that A Mohit began on Technorati recently on the systematic destruction of the middle class in the U.S.
This week's Torah portion, Re'eh (Deuteronomy 11:26-16:17), includes the commandment to take care of the needy. Some may say this means a community should provide the poor with the bare minimum of food, shelter, and health care. For me, it is an entry point to question the great disparity between the rich and the poor.
It is not enough to simply ameliorate suffering. Rather, we must determine the root of the problem: is the wealth of the rich created on the backs of the poor?
I believe there are fundamental problems with the U.S. economy, a system that is tilted in favor of the few, with constant bailouts and tax breaks for the wealthy, while the middle class disappears and the poor are kept docile through credit cards, mass entertainment, and the delusional myth of "the American dream."
I look forward toward fundamental policy changes that support human growth and allow all citizens equal opportunity.
Posted by cj at 6:51 PM | Comments (0)
July 18, 2010
Digital Activism, Digital Diplomacy, Digital Chasms
I just finished readin the amazing NYT article, "Digital Diplomacy," by Jesse Lichtenstein. This article is important, not just because it shows the frontier of digital statecraft, but because it proves the importance of integrating social media into policy activism.
Perhaps this point is obvious to you. If you want to influence policy, you need to engage in debate on the interwebs, not just in face-to-face meetings with diplomats or in coalition meetings with like-minded organizations.
Lichtenstein does a great job of showing how State isn't fully equipped to handle the type of engagement created by Jared Cohen and Alec Ross. While she's quick to point out the ways digital media can enhance grassroots activism, and get the USG's positions out to the masses, she overlooks a key problem: like governments, most NGOs are not equipped to handle digital activism. If you've been involved in an organization that allows social media policy and practice to be handled solely by interns, then you understand what I mean.
I'm not trying to disparage interns. Indeed, they are essential to most nonprofits. But we've got to figure out a way to integrate these new communication channels into the lifeblood of our organizations.
I'm looking forward to working with others to fill the digital chasm that exists in the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. If you've got ideas, please let me know. Because we're leaders in international peace and justice movement; and we provide the best reporting on gender and conflict and disarmament at the UN. But our social media strategy is in its infancy and our membership organization lacks a unified approached to digital activism.
Posted by cj at 7:21 PM | Comments (0)
July 4, 2010
Independence, Nationalism, the American Experience
Plenty of people can't fathom criticizing nationalism. If you don't accept that we live in the greatest country in the world, why not leave? If you can't appreciate your freedom, just leave!
My wariness of nationalism stems from its historical roots. By creating an identity larger than your community, but separate from people beyond a border, Us vs. Them becomes easier to swallow. In a world connected by the interwebs, it can be depressing that more people aren't more closely connected with a global perspective.
Regardless of your feelings about Independence Day, "The Great Rupture," by Peter Goodman in the NYT should be required reading today. The profound disconnect between economic reality and policy is laid bare in vignettes from across the country. The US government provided billions to bail out the "financial system," ensuring bonuses and hefty salaries for the charlatans who got us into this mess, yet "fiscally conservative" politicians refuse to extend unemployment benefits for the millions of people devastated by the economic collapse caused by the geniuses of Wall Street legal gambling.
It's time to take a stand. Declare your independence from group think. Reach out to your neighbors, next door and across the world. Learn about your history. Learn about your neighbor's history. And let's work together to create the nonviolent paradigm shift desperately needed to convince politicians that Public Works is more effective than Corporate Bailouts. That diplomacy should be led by the State Department, not the DOD.
Social upheaval: it's closer than you think.
Posted by cj at 11:54 AM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2010
The Sad State of Sunday Morning Round Tables
Ingredients of a successful round table: fill with 4 parts older white men, 1 part older white woman. Any one part can be exchanged with one of the following: younger white man, woman of color, man of color. No more than one part of the following can be included in the mix: person of color, person under 50. You may include two people under 50, if all other people on the panel look over 60.
I don't know why I'm still surprised every Sunday when there is absolutely no space allowed for a liberal voice, let alone an activist voice on ABC or NBC. The "Tea Party" is claimed as a legitimate, logical part of the political landscape, but goodness help you if you believe society has an obligation to support its individual members.
Nevermind that none of these shows have said a single word about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference currently underway in NYC.
But let's spend all of our time talking about Elana Kagan.
Check out the photos on the Meet The Press site. Since it was the first program I watched today, it forced me to recognize the lack of diversity in these shows.
Jake Tapper is still the moderator on This Week. It is painful to watch the conservatives talk beyond him, always taking up more than half the time when a "two position" discussion is "moderated." Sadly, Senator Patrick Leahy is truly getting older and may be too slow when speaking responses to be truly effective in today's fast-paced media. Senator Jeff Sessions not only bogarted the air-time, he also appeared more coherent and comprehensive in his answers. Leahy meandered his way into calling the b.s. of Sessions' rants. I can't wait until August, when Cristianne Amanpour become the moderator.
I have to admit it - I usually hate listening to Katty Kay on The Chris Matthews Show. On today's show, I respect what she's said. Sad that it's an all-white panel discussing the racist Arizona law. Did you know there is only one person of color on the Matthew Meter? Perhaps you did. Or perhaps you gave up on the mainstream media long ago. I find it important to keep up with the official spin on how the world turns.
Posted by cj at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)
February 20, 2010
Realities of War As Seen Through "The Hurt Locker"
Politicians who want to make the world safe for democracy by sending in the US military should remember a simple truth: most of the English-speaking countries in the world are already democracies. That means the barrel of a gun is the only form of communication between the vast majority of military personnel and the people they are "protecting."
Apparently, making a statement as overt as the above is too political for today's movie-making climate. And the UN is just a place for terrorists to place bombs. It's truly fascinating to me that more people are willing to watch, in slow motion, excruciatingly boring detail, the tour of a bomb squad than are willing to understand the nuance of diplomacy and cross-cultural communication.
At this point, I don't care what you think about the Iraq War. I think it's a travesty that instead of trying to better understand Iraqis, today's war movies can only accomplish one thing: increase our empathy for American soldiers.
Compare The Hurt Locker to Three Kings: in this year's biggest Oscar bait flick, the most extensive Iraqi part goes to a kid hocking pirated DVDs. On the other hand, the fictitious depiction of the first Iraq War provided a look at both the terror inflicted by Saddam's regime and the cruelty of the "American liberators" (in that they abandoned their Iraqi cohorts rather than working to overthrow Hussein).
Oh - but there, I've done it. I must be a crazy left-wing nut to want my war movies to have a point, a plot, and a reason to care about the characters.
This post is not about how I think the US should have handled its relationship with the country of Iraq. This is about the depiction of war in the US: the rejection of nuance; the refusal to portray any non-Western character as more than 2-dimensional, and the ridiculous Scarlet A attached to any film that dares to make you think about the consequences of war.
I just don't know why I'm so surprised.
Posted by cj at 10:23 PM | Comments (0)
January 11, 2010
More Female Ambassadors in DC: More Women Leaders or Less Power for Diplomacy?
In today's Washington Post The article 'Hillary effect' cited for increase in female ambassadors to U.S., by Mary Jordan was published in today's Washington Post and highlighted in Slateist Morning Edition.
It's good to know that there are now 25 female ambassadors posted in DC (out of 182 accredited ambassadors, they represent 13.7% of all ambassadors to the US). The rise has been credited to the string of female US Secretaries of State (Albright, Rice, Clinton).
Some female ambassadors refuse to acknowledge that they might bring a different perspective to the art of diplomacy. Carolina Barco from Colombia simply wants to push free trade, though she admits being female gets her noticed. Former SecState Albright rejects the notion of women focusing on "soft issues," stating: ""They are often the hardest issues: poverty, discrimination, education and health."
I was happy to learn that Bahrain's ambassador since 2008 is Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, the first Jewish ambassador from an Arab state.
Nevertheless, I was deeply troubled by the question posed by Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association:
Johnson said the rise in female diplomats coincides with what she sees as a shift in investment away from diplomacy and toward defense. "Is the relative feminization of diplomacy indicative of its decline as a center of power and influence?" she wonders.Indeed, one need look no further than Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to realize that world leaders erroneously believe human security can be developed through instruments of war.
I too welcome increases in the number of women engaged in diplomacy. But we should always remember that it's not enough for us to have more seats at the table. As global citizens, we must demand that conflict resolution begin and end with nonviolent negotiations. We must explain to our fellow citizens and elected leaders that the vast majority of money spent on the military is wasted, leading to less human security, not more. And we must promote democratic institutions: from the town hall meetings to the US Congress to the United Nations as the proper arenas for conflict resolution.
Posted by cj at 6:23 AM | Comments (0)
December 5, 2009
War, Media & The Plight of Veterans
The West LA Democratic Club sponsored a fundraiser for The Veteran's Project.
I'm a member of the Democratic Party, but the last time I actively participated in the party, beyond voting, was 1988. It was weird to see what a local political party is like in person. The president, Cara Robin, got up and thanked everyone for coming "on behalf of the West LA Democratic Party and our co-sponsors." That's the extent to which co-sponsoring organizations were mentioned. So much for movement building. She then made cursory statement about the need for us to re-elect Barbara Boxer, support Marcy Winograd's bid for Congress, and help get California Majority Rule on the ballot.
Then she sorta introduced the first speaker, Georg-Andreas (Andrew) Pogany, from Give an Hour. He apologized for needing to read his speech from his computer. He lost his original speech, and due to a brain injury that occurred as a result of the war, he has difficulty memorizing things.
After Pogany spoke, Ms. Robin introduced the rest of the panel.
Robert Sheer is a nationally syndicated columnist, co-host of Left, Right, and Center, Editor-in-Chief of Truth Dig, and author of Pornography of Power.
Scott Ritter is the author of Target Iran, Waging Peace, and Iraq Confidential. He is a former senior weapons inspector in Iraq.
Peter Richardsom teaches California Culture at San Francisco State University and recently published a book on Ramparts Magazine, A Bomb in Every Issue.
Mr.Sheer spoke next in a dis-jointed manner that was difficult to follow for people not intimately knowledgeable about his career. Mr. Richardson spoke next and didn't give a complete explanation of Ramparts magazine, since 30% of the audience raised their hands to say they knew what it was. (His short definition: it brought muckraking journalism back to the mainstream. Shortly after it won the prestigious Polk Award, CBS premiered 60 Minutes and the Pentagon Papers were published by the Washington Post.)
After hearing an explanation of why Martin Luther King, Jr came out against the Vietnam war that started with Sheer telling the end of the story and Richardson telling the beginning and middle, I started wondering if I was really at a panel about the experiences of veterans in war or if I was at another panel on the history of the peace & justice movement.
I don't mean to disparage the speakers. Pogany, Sheer, and Richardson had important messages to give. They just weren't all talking about veterans. And ultimately, I was more inspired by Ritter's speech than those of his fellow panelists.
Eventually, Mr. Ritter spoke. His insightful, biting commentary was just what you'd expect from a former military man: sprinkled with profanity, cutting to the heart of the manner with no b.s. I found it interesting that several audience members were offended by the way he spoke, telling him afterward that he didn't make a solid case. Here's the abbreviated version of what he said:
We're here because of veterans. No matter what they look like physically, military will never be the same when they come back from war. The process of preparing our youth for war, changes a person forever.When you are born into this world, you are not programmed to do what the military programs you to do. We can throw whatever rhetoric we want out there: An Army of One. Navy: A Global Force for Good. The truth is join the military and learn to take human life. You're either directly taking it or supporting people taking life. The military exists for one reason only: to kill human beings. We're taking human beings and de-humanizing them.
Audience member asked a question, stating that "cleaning up the mess we began" is a strong argument for keeping the US military in Afghanistan. How do you propose we clean up the mess in a different way?
First of all, it is the quintessential American issue. We live by the Pottery Barn rule: you break it, you own it. It really does work, sort of. What happens when you insert the elephant into the china shop? Shit, buy new china. The ultimate way to resolve it is get the elephant out of the china shop. Afghanistan is a horrifically complicated place. Is Holbrooke going to speak any of the native languages of Afghanistan? If we're going to take a 20 year old kid from Poughkeepsie, NY or Santa Cruz, CA then we should give him the 11 years of education to understand the language and culture at a pH.D level before going there. Otherwise, we shouldn't send him there. We don't have the tool set to fix it. The people best equipped to fix Afghanistan are the Afghan people themselves.
It's time to get the bull out of the china stop. US citizens need to stop seeing the US as the global policeman. We need to embrace internationalism and work through the United Nations to help people create politically viable nation states. We need to begin diplomacy with human beings, not machine guns.
It's not enough to read books and listen to Democracy Now! We must be engaged citizens. We must hold politicians accountable: not just by voting, but by working together to create a critical mass of political will for peace and justice. Join the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and help create the change so desperately needed.
It's time to expose the fallacy of the paradigms espoused by the meritocracy and political elite. It's time to assert that another way is possible. WILPF is the way global citizens of all genders can create non-violent social upheaval.
And yes, we need to support veterans. We need to support veterans of both genders, recognizing not just PTSD, but also the horrific levels of rape faced by our female soldiers. I do not believe in war. I do not believe there is a conflict best solved by violence. But I do believe that veterans deserve mental and physical health services and they deserve re-training. Not another 2 for 1 pizza coupon or vehicle discount, but real health services for them and their families.
Posted by cj at 5:35 PM | Comments (0)
December 3, 2009
US to Escalate Destabilization of Afghanistan
Tuesday night was a turning point in the Obama presidency. All weekend, details of his "plan" leaked out in the political media. So I had plenty of advanced warning that like many foolish presidents before him, Obama thinks he can save the world by occupying it with the US military. So many people are so hopeful for the leadership he supposedly offers. Sure, he's said some pretty rhetoric about nuclear disarmament. But what does any of that talk - or his Nobel Peace Prize mean when the man does not recognize that Human Beings Live in Afghanistan. He talked about the Taliban and al Qaeda, but never about poverty or corruption, war lords or illegitimate presidents. And then he had the gall to end his speech hoping that we all join in unity, like we did after 9-11.
Let's be clear about something: if you have to rely on pandering to the fears created by the horrific terrorist attack on US soil in 2001 to unify your audience, then you've failed to make a persuasive argument.
Yet, he did. And there are so many people who think he's right. I'll admit something: eight years ago, I thought the US military would be useful to bring women out of the shadows of Afghanistan and create space for all people of the country to create a real nation. How foolish I was. And how foolish the US political elite continues to be.
Obama's Afghanistan strategy relies on everything that is wrong with international relations. IR focuses on Power: you must be a war lord, terrorist, state leader, or corporation to be meaningful in a discussion based on "realist" theory. The men who created this paradigm thought so highly of their beliefs that anyone daring to oppose them were derided as "idealists."
I'm tired of these standards of discourse. Poverty, political corruption, and social instability have never been resolved by military occupation. Flooding Afghanistan with English speaking US soldiers and US-paid mercenaries serves one purpose: it props up the corrupt, illegitimate Karzai government and gives carte blanche to warlords wielding power in the name of fighting terror.
I accepted the reality of international relations seven years ago, when I made the decision to stop pursuing a career in the foreign service. The paradigm shifts needed to create real human security are so massive: non-violent social upheaval is simply the only way to make it happen. And I can't help move the world towards needed paradigm shifts from a job serving the US Empire.
Tuesday's speech depressed me. It's depressing not just because the most recent Nobel Peace Prize winner fundamentally does not understand how to create global peace. It's depressing because to explain the faults in his reasoning requires a level of sophistication in political discourse that simply does not exist in the US mainstream media. The only place I've heard a bit of common sense on the topic was Josef Joffe, a German publisher/editor on "To The Point" explaining that Europeans, after experiencing two horrific wars on their soil in the 20th century, think diplomacy is the best way to solve international disputes and create nation states.
Remember, Europeans did not find these beliefs by sitting in ivory towers, thinking up ways to rule the world. The true horror of war, the disgusting indiscriminate nature of aerial bombings and painfully slow path to reconstruction taught them the simple truth: War Is Never The Answer. Period. Full Stop.
You may call me an idealist, but I believe I am the true realist. I have seen the core of human nature, I have seen the destruction of war and I say firmly: the US military is not a liberating force. The US fails to live up to UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which mandates women's equal participation in conflict resolution. Fighting terrorists through mercenaries, the US military, and corrupt warlords does not create human security for US citizens or Afghans.
The US Government has chosen the path to further destabilization of Afghanistan.
At this crucial moment in world history, will you silently ascent to the senseless deaths of more US soldiers and Afghans? Or will you take a stand for real justice?
Things to do:
- Sign the Code Pink petition against Endless Occupation.
- Join Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. We work tirelessly to challenge and change the root causes of war and injustice at the local, national, and international level.
- Explain your opposition to the hopeless military escalation to your friends, family, and co-workers.
- Chastise mainstream media for excluding articulate anti-war voices from their political talk shows. Ask how balanced a panel is when no one on it rejects the paradigm of IR realism.
- Find a way to create peace in your own life so that your anger doesn't consume you: depression, though a logical response to this endless war, only poisons you.
Posted by cj at 9:21 PM | Comments (0)
October 26, 2009
In a time of economic uncertainty, I want you to help me go to India
I need your financial support to travel to India. Here's why:
I have been an active WILPF member for 10 years. I served two terms on the national board. I am a life member, having paid $500 for the privilege of having a membership that never expires. Currently, I am the convener of the international WILPF Communications Committee, which makes me a member of the International Board. I am also active on the Los Angeles branch board. I am raising money to attend the next WILPF International Board meeting.
In the recent past, I was the editor of the US Section E-Newsletter. (2008 through May, 2009. Several of my early pieces were not gathered on the E-News Archive Page.)
Why should you care? Because WILPF is vital to the future of peace and justice in the world. Because the institution is at a crossroads, in desperate need of forward movement that builds on the incredible analytical work of its founders.
Four years ago, I switched careers and became a direct marketer. While my professional career limits the amount of time I can commit to WILPF, it also enhances the skill set I bring to the organization. I now have the ability to create a communication strategy around the programmatic work of my sister WILPFers.
Like many WILPFers, I can articulate our perspectives on the world verbally and in prose. The reason I believe my participation in this meeting is vital is because I am also an integrated marketing professional. I am the translator WILPF needs: I can articulate our complicated, diplomatic language into simple English. The simplification of our message is vital in a world full of conscientious people who are overwhelmed by their personal daily struggles and deluged with the chatter of other issue advocacy organizations.
I need to raise $1,500 in the next 3 weeks to make this happen. Can you help? No amount is too small.
Did you know the only American women to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize won for their work with Women's International League for Peace and Freedom? (Jane Addams and Emily Greene Balch.)
WILPF is not just the oldest women's peace organization.
We're also at the forefront of international cooperation. WILPF was intimately involved in the negotiations that created UN Security Council Resolutions 1325, 1820, and 1888.
We also work to create a critical mass of political will for nuclear disarmament.
WILPFers work to create peace from the ground up. Our national sections choose foci that are important for their locale. In the US, our members work in local branches and national committees to challenge the status quo. We believe in human rights, dismantling the military industrial complex, and protecting the environment. We believe women's equal participation in all levels of society, including politics, is vital to the future of the world. We founded the first wave of feminism, and we'll keep riding its waves until the strength of our convictions has permanently altered the political landscape.
Does it sound like we have too many issues? That's because separation is a modern fallacy: society is inter-connected. The radiation leaked by nuclear power plants and nuclear warheads has the same effect: increasing the rates of cancer (particularly thyroid cancer). The list goes on. WILPFers before me said it best:
It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.
I have applied for funds from the Kay Camp Travel Fund, administered by the Jane Addams Peace Association (JAPA is WILPF's 501(c)3 sister organization). I am also seeking assistance from my local branch. Maximum award from the Kay Camp fund is $600 and the total budget for this trip (visa, flight, conference registration) is currently $2,200. Amount will fluctuate every day until I secure the visa and purchase the airfare.
Posted by cj at 10:16 PM | Comments (0)
September 15, 2009
Women Deserve Political Power, Not Just Micro-Loans
Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn provided the cover story for a recent NY Times Magazine issue. The article is titled "Why Women's Rights Are the Cause of Our Time."
To be honest, I found it frustrating to read about women's burgeoning economic prospects with scant contemplation of our political and social rights.
In a letter to the editor, WILPF member Robin Lloyd pointed out that women's rights are guaranteed under international law: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and, UN Security Council Resolution 1325.
Yet, no one is crying out for the implementation of these laws. In October, 2008, the UN Working Group on Women, Peace & Security addressed the Security Council and reminded them of the following statistics: Since 2000, women averaged 7% of negotiators in five major UN peace processes. Fewer than 3% of the signatories in 14 peace talks were women. Read the statement in its entirety. (pdf)
At what point will the mainstream columnists start demanding the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and 1820? At what point will they recognize that not including women in conflict resolution is a major cause of instability in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's no shock that capitalism works or that most women will spend more money on family needs than booze. What is frustrating is people focusing solely on economic empowerment and staying absolutely silent on the need for women's equal involvement in the political sphere.
The magazine also made me wonder about Western prescriptions for development vs. home-grown solutions.
Should we be developing a universal blueprint for increasing women's involvement in conflict resolution, politics in general, and economics? Should we be spending more time learning from the women on the ground in conflict areas / developing countries? What's the best way to do both (push for universal human rights / implementation of UN resolutions and learn from / support women on the ground?)
I look forward to developing answers to these questions with my sister WILPFers. We've got sections around the world. Our founding mothers were determined to bring women's voices into the halls of power. And we'll continue to do so. Want to help? Donate to WILPF today.
Want to get even more involved? Become a WILPF member (all genders invited).
Posted by cj at 9:31 PM | Comments (0)
June 24, 2009
Nerd Up: Laugh w POTUS
@dmscott embedded this video in his blog. Hilarious 14 minutes of John Hodgman riffing on POTUS.
Good to know I have something in common with POTUS (we've both met Spock). Sadly, neither the Kohanim priestly blessing nor the Vulcan salute come easily to me.
Shalom aleichem and good night.
Posted by cj at 10:25 PM | Comments (0)
June 22, 2009
The Human Right to Health Care
I find it frightening that the mainstream media's coverage of the health care debate includes absolutely zero advocates of single payer health care. Instead, the Sunday talk shows drone on about what a drain that would be on the capitalist system. Politicians actually lament that if we allow the government to compete in the health care industry, it's a slippery slope to creating government corporations in computer manufacturing and every other capitalist industry.
Then the moderates pipe in that it's a shame Obama is flirting with subsidized health care, but it will be okay if the public option is a thousand and one tiny co-ops, never allowed to amass the scale needed to challenge the for-profit system.
Let's get real, folks. As the majority of US'ians know, health care is a human right, not another financial derivative waiting to be cashed in on. Being a female thyroid cancer survivor should not force me to spend $55 more than the average US'ian at CVS every single month. [My average monthly spend at CVS is $89, whereas the average US monthly spend is $34, according to Mint.com].
I noted my gender in addition to my cancer status because my dear health insurance company determined that I must pay a monthly penalty for choosing name-brand birth control; I am gouged $30 more per month than I was on my previous employer's health insurance plan.
Let's be clear: I did not choose to be susceptible to the environmental damage wreaked on my hometown by decades of military contractors. Since it is vitally important for me to maintain a steady dose of thyroid hormone, and since that hormone reacts to the levels of other hormones in my body, it's necessary for me to take brand-name birth control to ensure I always get the same amount of estrogen in my system. But nevermind all that nonsense, because a profit-seeking medicine gatekeeper decided that I must take generics whenever they are available. I can only be grateful that they didn't decide to gouge me for both medicines I take monthly.
Right, so to bring this personal frustration back to the political sphere, let me just repeat: the state of ease or dis-ease in my body is something for my doctors and me to control. No one should be able to complain that I'm not a great customer because I'm a cancer survivor: I'm a wonderful customer, since I help keep those damn pharmaceutical companies in business!
Do you know the modern health insurance industry was born in the 70s? In forty short years, they've bamboozled us out of more money than any other industrial country and created some of the worst health statistics.
What is so frightening about single payer health care? Is the upper middle class really afraid the poor will over-crowd their hospitals? (This is the argument I heard while waiting 2 hours to be admitted to Cedar-Sinai Hospital for pre-scheduled radiation treatment...as I sat, slightly delirious because I was off my meds, famished because I wasn't supposed to eat 3 hours before swallowing the toxic treatment, in the admitting waiting room while other about-to-be-patients ate their lunch and the entire intake staff took lunch at the exact same time.)
Do people really think government bureaucracy is more inept than corporate bureaucracy? At least the government has citizens' needs as their number one priority. When your primary motivation is profit, what does it matter if you kill someone by denying them treatment?
I'll never understand why more US citizens don't rise up and demand single-payer health care. I'll never understand why the former darling of the Democratic party, Senator Max Baucus refuses to allow single-payer advocates a seat at the negotiating table.
Posted by cj at 9:44 PM | Comments (1)
June 13, 2009
Listening to Alternative Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Today, the Consul General of Israel, Jacob Dayan, spoke at my synagogue, Ohr Hatorah.
Israel is a very difficult topic for me to deal with, as a practicing Jew and as a peace activist. I desperately want to respect the opinions of people with whom I disagree. I want to be able to listen to opposing viewpoints without running away. I still do not know how to have a meaningful dialog on this issue and this troubles me greatly.
First, I want to review my positions. I respect that the leaders of my congregation have declared the temple to be Zionist, but I hope I am allowed to continue to participate in the community even though I disagree with them.
Judaism is my religion. I am a post-Orthodox, neo-Hasidic Jew and I go to temple almost every Shabbat. It is also my ethnicity: both of my parents are Jewish and I have never heard anyone in my family call us Ukrainian or Russian (even though most of my ancestors came from the Ukraine back when it was part of Russia), because my people were never accepted into those nationalities. So, yes, it is my ethnicity as well. But it is not my nationality.
In my view, a religious state is inherently undemocratic. Any religious state is inherently undemocratic. Why? Because the act of declaring a state religion isolates and subjugates citizens who do not share those religious beliefs.
I believe Israel is occupying Palestine. I believe Jewish-only highways are an obstacle to peace. I believe all Jewish settlements in the West Bank are an obstacle to peace. I believe the Israeli blockade of Gaza is an obstacle to peace. I believe Israeli checkpoints surrounding and within the West Bank and Gaza are an obstacle to peace. I believe until US'ians recognize Israel's inherent power over the Palestinians, we will never be honest brokers, nor will we ever help create peace.
I believe all Palestinian political leaders deserve a space at the negotiating table for peace. I believe this should occur with absolutely zero pre-conditions. Negotiating occurs at the peace table, not before you sit down. Hatred abounds on both sides of this conflict, and Israeli distrust of Hamas cannot trump democratic elections.
I denounce all acts of violence. This includes Palestinian suicide bombers. I denounce Palestinian attacks on Israel. I also denounce Israeli attacks on Palestine. Violence begets violence and there was nothing just about Israel's attack on Gaza in December 08 / January 09.
Right, so now that I've gotten that out of the way, here's a bit of what Mr. Dayan said this morning. I did not take notes for the entire speech (at first I was just trying to breathe), but here's what I did catch (this is not verbatim):
With hopes for a peaceful future for all people of the Middle East, including Jewish Israelis, Palestinian Israelis, Palestinians, and Iranians.
The world is very different today than it was 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. I know this because the best rapper in the world is white. The best golfer in the world is black. The Germans don't want to go to war. And the French call Americans arrogant.We face a huge threat from non-state actors. Terrorism is the scourge of the world. There are many different terrorists, but the thing that unifies them is that they all believe in fundamentalist Islam. And Muslims suffer the most from these terrorists.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. His denial of the Holocaust proves that he is an enemy to Jewish people. The possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons is the biggest threat to peace in the region.
This threat in the region provides us with a great opportunity to work with other countries in the Middle East.
Israel made a decision not to control the lives of Palestinians.
Israel was established not because of the Holocaust, but because we have roots; 3,000 years of roots in Israel. Theodor Herzl's original Zionist plan was to create a Jewish state in Uganda. It was only after that plan was defeated at the Seventh Zionist Congress that he realized there was only one place where Jews can establish and should establish their homeland.
Israel has a three track approach to peace:
- Economy: Without a middle class, you cannot create a stable economy. The West Bank was extremely quiet during the military operation in Gaza, especially in comparison to Europe, because they see an alternative to Hamas.
- Military
- Political track
- Good governance: Israel is not a part of this track, but the Palestinians have to build their institutions. In the face of corruption, Palestinians turned to Hamas as an alternative.
The most immediate threat that we face globally today is the Iranian threat.Israel agrees with President Obama's strategy for peace in the Middle East. We may disagree on a tactical level, but that's okay. The United States remains our strongest and most important ally.
Posted by cj at 5:00 PM | Comments (0)
June 7, 2009
I'll be a Post-Feminist in the Post-Patriarchy
I don't know why I torture myself on Sundays. I've dedicated this entire weekend to self preservation, but lately I've been starting my Sundays with some mild torture.
See, on Sundays I clean (up to a week's worth of) dishes, chop vegetables, and make myself breakfast. I listen to / watch the Sunday morning talk shows while doing this. And thus remind myself of how far from the mainstream my views are.
It seems like every female pundit on the planet firmly believes she lives in a post-feminist world. They laud Michelle Obama as the poster girl for post-feminist femininity. I often wonder what alternative reality this mindless hypocrites live in. Why must they disparage the evolution of women's place in public society by denouncing all demands for equality? Why do they accept the right-wing definition of "feminism"? Why do so many intelligent people define feminism as the movement of middle-class white women to assert their ability to go to work?
Let's be clear: feminism did not start with The Feminine Mystique. Further, acknowledging your right to be a girly housewife does not make me a post-feminist. Believing that society has already achieved gender equality is the most myopic, Eurocentric statement a Westerner can make. Pray tell, how does rape as a weapon of war fit into your post-feminist construct? What about the lack of affordable child care? Or how about the fact that most US'ians can't decide to allow one parent to stay home with the kids because there is no middle class left in this country and two incomes are mandatory to survive?
Look, I fully acknowledge that I am a lucky woman who lives in an extraordinary time. My professional opportunities are not hampered by my gender (though as a thyroid cancer survivor, my need for adequate health care does limit career paths).
But there is so much more to be done. Binary gender does not adequately explain the human condition. Physical anatomy cannot be used to assign gender identities. Around the world, women are not equal. They suffer a disproportionate burden in conflict regions. Western countries daily violate United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which mandates women's equal involvement in conflict and post-conflict resolution. Want to know why Iraq and Afghanistan are more screwed up now than 7 years ago? A major reason is that the US government and its coalition of the willing blindly ignored the women of those countries as necessary, influential, and important partners in peace building.
Stop telling me that wearing makeup on a daily basis and getting excited about going on dates with my boyfriend make me a post-feminist. Stop telling the American people we live in a gender-neutral society. Stop defining feminism as bra-burning, man-hating lesbians.
Until women hold 50% of elected offices, until every workplace is family friendly, until women are equal participants in conflict resolution, until rape and sexual violence cease to exist, feminism will continue. The movement for gender equality will not die simply because it is an uncomfortable notion to the mainstream American punditry.
I will be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.
Posted by cj at 4:40 PM | Comments (1)
May 17, 2009
Reading Tea Leaves: Hoping for a Shift in USG Policy on the ME
Helene Cooper stokes the fire of justice and prayers for peace in today's NYT. She calls upon people who have had contact with POTUS to determine whether there is any possibility for him to break from the US government's lock-step agreement with right-wing Israeli leaders and concludes that it's entirely possibly.
In fact, she ends the article with a quote from a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles W. Freeman, Jr. who compares the possible change in policy to Nixon's game-changing trip to China. [Aside: former Mormon missionary, current Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr was nominated to be ambassador to China. Is an ultra-religious man really the best choice to dialog with the world's largest atheist community?]
I want to be hopeful. I want to believe that change is coming. But words mean very little when injustice has been accepted for 61 long years.
Posted by cj at 8:00 AM | Comments (0)
March 31, 2009
Women, Action & the Media Conference
Last weekend, I went to an amazing conference Women, Action & the Media.
Here's a breakdown of the live-blogging done at the conference:
Friday, March 27: Pre-Conference Intensive on PR
Morning Panel Discussion
Introduction to the morning panel discussion
Elements to create a good media strategy
Media Strategy 101
Getting the mainstream, niche, and ethnic media to pay attention
How do you convey your message? USE MEDIA
Media exposure on the cheap
Afternoon Workshop on Creating a Media Strategy, led by Ina Howard-Parker of Represent, Inc.
Developing a comprehensive media strategy
Creating a media strategy continued
Elements of a communications planning process
PR Q&A
PR 101 Imagery
Friday evening: The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo. The most powerful documentary I have ever seen.
Saturday Plenary: Cynthia Lopez, Insider - Outsider
Interlude: shout out to The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way
Saturday Sessions
How to work in the mainstream media - and why you want to
Get inside the minds of editors
Where are the women in the political media?
Sunday Sessions
Write and publish persuasive op-eds for a national audience
Are the messages the new media? post by Theta Pavis
Women and the economic crisis: getting beyond the corporate media narrative
Q&A on women and the economic crisis
Posted by cj at 9:11 PM | Comments (0)
November 4, 2008
What about the propositions?
How on the day that a black man was elected president could the voters of California vote to limit the human rights of their fellow citizens?
How in the world can Californians vote yes on prop 8?
I shouldn't put so much emphasis in 2% of the precincts reporting...but it still puts a terrible taste in my mouth that 57% of currently counted votes are for a constitutional ban on same gender marriage. For the love of all things holy!
Posted by cj at 8:38 PM | Comments (0)
My grumpy morning voting
I got mad this morning. I woke up early to go vote before work. I was in line at 6:53 a.m. Problem was, the county workers who opened the polls decided to let 2 lines form: one at the front and one in the back by the parking lot (a parking lot that was closed on one side).
So instead of getting to move in a timely manner, I had to wait while the flow was let in "evenly" between the lines. But here's the crux: this is the first time ever a line was allowed from the back door. So those of us who have voted before were held up by knowing the "right" door to queue at.
And it gets worse - I was so angry, so frustrated about the old lady looking up my name, so annoyed that my name had to be checked twice (why twice?) that I ran too quickly through the ballot and mismarked a proposition. So, I had to request a new ballot.
Anyway, I'm glad I stuck it out and voted before any state was called. Made my vote feel slightly more meaningful for president. And you know, those LA judges couldn't get in without me. :)
Wow. 8 long years of ineptitude in the electorate and in the party machine has now ended.
Congrats Obama on creating a party machine for the 21st century.
Now it's time to push for more progressive policies.
Posted by cj at 7:46 PM | Comments (0)
November 3, 2008
I Did It! I Voted!
Ok, so maybe technically I'll be voting in 7 hours, 45 minutes. But it was quite an accomplishment just to fill out the sample ballot.
Most intriguing: it takes 3 pamphlets to read all of the official pro and con stuff. The California General Election Official Voter Information Guide has info on statewide ballot initiatives. It's the easiest to read because it's a big book. The sample ballot has most of the other info for county and school initiatives. And the Voter Information Pamphlet from the LA city clerk feels like a waste of my money, since it only has info on two propositions.
And that ridiculous question - why am I constantly asked to judge judges? I still don't understand the answer. But the LA Democratic Party endorsed candidates.
And the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund compiled as much info on those judicial candidates as you'd ever want - including podcasts.
Here's hoping my neighbors are too busy to join me at the polls tomorrow morning. I've got meetings tomorrow morning at work...
Posted by cj at 11:17 PM | Comments (0)
November 2, 2008
Lazy Voter Syndrome
A part of me is so excited that Election Day is two days from now. I'm so relieved to know that NPR and the NYT will talk about something else in a week or two.
On the other hand, I'm dreading it a bit. I've been lazy and haven't read my ballot yet. Haven't figured out who I'm voting for. Now don't get all riled up by that statement. My presidential selection was secured when Obama out-machined the Clinton machine. That's not why I dread going to the voting booth.
I need to read all those damn propositions. Especially the local ones that get no air time. And I'm sure there are more judges on the ballot. How the hell are you supposed to vote for a judge? That is the most asinine part of voting.
Even my Congressional choice is a no brainer. The Republican nominee sent me postcards with the tagline "drill baby drill." Anyone who thinks that is phrase in any way represents serious public policy does not deserve to be on the ballot, let alone a major party candidate. It was also intriguing that he chose to send me a picture of my current Congressman rather than using his own photo on his postcard. I suppose the conservatives who surround me would be less likely to vote for a right wing nut in a turban than they would to vote against an incumbent "corrupt" Democrat.
So yes, there are easy choices on the ballot. Voting to keep abortion access legal for all women regardless of age. Voting to not add blatant discrimination to my state's constitution. The unlikely event of my matrimony will not be affected in any way by the ability of my fellow citizens to marry. Have to say, I'm relieved that the founders of the country did a few things right...even if they saddled us with this completely undemocratic Electoral College....
But a sales tax hike to pay for public trans in this economy? And I'm not even sure what else is on the ballot. I know. I need to do my civic duty and read the damn thing before Tuesday morning. I will. But I still have the right to grumble about it.
Posted by cj at 9:01 PM | Comments (0)
September 28, 2008
Nuclear Non-Proliferation: World Security Hacked by US Corporations
Nuclear proliferation is one of the gravest threats facing the world. It was even one of the few substantive foreign policy issues discussed during the recent US presidential debate. And yet, the United States government has actively worked to diminish the effectiveness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
First, the USG supported the creation of the Israeli nuclear warheads, the biggest open secret mocking the effectiveness of the NPT. Then, the USG actively worked to disrupt the diplomatic process at NPT review conferences. Under extreme pressure from the USG, the nuclear suppliers group issued an exemption to India, allowing any country to sell it nuclear supplies despite the fact that India refuses to sing the NPT. And now, the US Congress is poised to open the floodgates to US nuclear trade with India.
WILPF issued a statement on the Nuclear Supplier's group decision to exempt India from joining the NPT before selling it nuclear supplies.
WILPF's Reaching Critical Will project created a backgrounder on the US-India deal, available here.
The House of Representatives passed the trade agreement yesterday. Earlier this week, NPR's Morning Edition had a report explaining the intense pressure exerted by industry lobbyists to suspend Congressional rules for review of such trade agreements. Unfortunately, the lobbyists for global security were not as well funded as the military industrial complex.
Proponents of the trade deal say US corporations will lose out to French and Russian nuclear dealers if the US law wasn't immediately changed. They say India will of course only use the technology to keep its nuclear power generators operating. Yet the only way to ensure that will happen is to force India to sign the NPT and the world community, including the US Congress, has severely diminished the effectiveness of this vital treaty by accepting India's refusal to comply with international norms.
There's no need for me to even mention the environmental and human damage caused by nuclear power in this argument. Even if you think it's a good thing to expose the world to increased levels of thyroid cancer and other health problems, it's impossible to argue that it's a good thing to expose the world to more nuclear weapons.
Today is a sad day for global security. It scares me that this horrific development didn't warrant more than a below-the-fold article on page 19 in the Sunday NY Times. While no nonproliferation experts were quoted in the article, they did at least note there is more opposition to the deal in India than there is in the US. More proof that the political process in this country is completely broken.
Posted by cj at 12:32 PM | Comments (0)
September 14, 2008
Community Organizing, Fear, and the American Public
I never thought I'd see the day when Saul Alinsky's name was used by a conservative politician on a national broadcast talk show. Nor am I surprised that Tom Brokaw was unable to refute the blatant lies spewed by Giuliani. Here's what the hypocritical former mayor of New York said on Meet the Press this morning:
This is--and also, the group that recruited him was a Saul Alinsky group that has all kinds of questions with regard to their outlook on the economy, their outlook on capitalism. I think it's at the core of Senator Obama's belief that the tax system should be used for a redistribution of wealth, rather than really for gaining revenues for the country. When, when Senator Obama was asked about his increase in capital gains tax and was told that if he does that, he would actually deprive the federal government of revenues, his answer was, "Well, it's only fair." Which gets you to a very core Saul Alinsky kind of almost socialist notion that it should be used for redistribution of wealth.Instead of refuting this moronic characterization of the founder of community organizing, Brokaw pointed out that Warren Buffett is an Obama supporter and "I think it would be probably a pretty big reach to describe him as a Saul Alinsky kind of economist." Let's be clear, people: Alinsky was not a dogmatic socialist. In fact, he preached an extremely conservative approach to challenging the system. He was not a crusading Robin Hood, and I'm disgusted that the media can't even research history enough to understand that.
Alinsky founded the Industrial Areas Foundation, which was the organization that Obama worked for. IAF works on a simple founding principle: organize community leaders to pressure government to create incremental change that will help make the community a better place. Incremental change like job training programs and public-private housing developments and forcing trash conglomerates to stop dumping waste in empty lots. Church leaders, school principals, and other traditional community leaders who are organized by IAF are not exactly rushing to bring down the pillars of capitalism; rather, they're trying to make capitalism work for everyday Americans as much as it works for Wall Street investors.
I shouldn't be surprised that community organizing is so misunderstood by the MSM. After all, the only defense of organizing Brokaw offered was a button slogan - "Jesus Christ was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor." A fair and balanced media would explain the basis for community organizing, instead of tacitly accepting a false association with socialism. The basic principal of community organizing is teaching individuals to work together to create change through the political system. Why is it so difficult for the MSM to state this fact?
This election has become a battle between Cold War mentality: fear the Other, fear Socialism, fear Big Cities and Hope based on belief in American ingenuity and global cooperation.
There's a simple reason the Republican strategy works. US presidents are not chosen by popular vote. Rural America is the backbone of this country because its system of States Rights makes Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota battle ground states, whereas the vast majority of the population does not matter in this election because they live in big cities on the coasts. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against people from small towns. It is parochialism, racist nationalism, and general Fear of Facts that disgusts me.
Don't believe me? Simply read the comments section of this polling site to realize that people think Obama is a closet Muslim, the anti-Christ, and other disparaging terms I refuse to type. It is far easier to characterize your opponent as the crazy other than it is to create a policy platform that will lead the country off the precipice of economic ruin. The vast majority of Americans make less today than they did 20 years ago; but no need to worry because we've got more lines of credit now than we ever did before. By focusing on creating Enemies out of political adversaries, Republicans are able to sway small town voters by creating an Us vs. Them mentality that leaves no room for educated debate. Indeed, George W. Bush proved that being dumb is an asset in this corrupt political system.
Patriotism and its sister Nationalism are used by petty political leaders to rally citizens around an Ideal of Country that makes Us look Strong and others look weak. It allows a political party to point to the Other and denounce their otherness. Though US corporations are the engine behind globalization, US citizens love to pretend they are the victims. It's those damn Chinese and Indians taking our high tech jobs and those Mexicans taking our low tech jobs. Nevermind that US "free trade" agreements have decimated Latin American economies, forcing people to migrate north for any hope of economic survival; or that US corporations get tax breaks to move high tech jobs overseas. It's easier to blame The Other than to learn about the real basis for the precariousness of your economic stability.
I don't focus my activist energy on elections because there is no room in a binary system for nuanced policy debate. But I'm grateful for community organizers and community leaders who work for incremental change regardless of the barriers thrown up by Republican hacks like Giuliani. I pray that the organizing principals Obama learned from the IAF will lead to a more effective Get Out The Vote effort than the fear-mongering of the corrupt Republican machine.
Posted by cj at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)
September 7, 2008
Responding to British Critism of US Elections
A Nick Cohen commentary in the Guardian newspaper was forwarded to a WILPF listserv. I believe the person forwarding the article thought it was an good reproach of the media's review of Sarah Palin's record as a politician and a mother.
Here is my response to that article (note my original audience was a group of international members of WILPF):
As an American, I need to point out some flagrant lies in the below article.
First of all, US presidents are elected undemocratically by an Electoral College system, which was written into the Constitution to limit the influence of the rabble constituents and promote the importance of states in our federal system. This is why our government continues to subsidize ethanol production rather than fix the problems of our inner-cities. People who live in rural America (and corporations) live a far more subsidized existence than the vast majority of our citizens. But my primary point is that a national poll about the presidential race is irrelevant to becoming the next president of this country.
Second, "liberal media bias" is a red herring that conservatives love to throw at the truth the mainstream media sometimes unearths about our politicians. See "Media Bashing 101," by Mark Leibovich in the New York Times for a deeper explanation -
Third, Nick Cohen never once touched on the hypocrisy of Sarah Palin that was uncovered by the mainstream media. She campaigns as a crusader against pork barrel spending, yet was the first mayor of her small town to hire a lobbyist in D.C. to secure funding for the town. That bridge to nowhere? It was actually a bridge to a new airport, and when running for governor she supported the bridge; then, she decided to cancel building the bridge, but kept the $200+ million from the nation's taxpayers for use in some other Alaskan slush fund.
As a woman, I am spitting mad that Republicans dare to say I'm sexist for questioning whether Palin is fit to be a heart beat away from the presidency. As a WILPFer, I am disgusted that a politican with breasts can work against every single aspect of gender equality: from the right to reproductive choice to dismissing grassroots activism and still be labeled a feminist. You want to know why leftists mock her family values? Because her party has been ramming abstinence-only sex education into our public schools, which is scientifically proven to not work and to increase public health problems (now more teenagers engage in anal and oral sex because somehow they think this keeps their virginity in tact); yet, her daughter's shotgun wedding is supposed to make me feel like she's more relatable.
Let me be clear - I'm not an Obama partisan. Another thing Nick Cohen got wrong was trying to draw a parallel between US and British politics. There is no room in the US system for more than two parties, neither of which embody WILPF's ideals. Combine that with the documented election fraud caused by electronic voting machines, the thousand ways US corporations have a larger influence on government than US citizens, and you'll be hard pressed to find anywhere in this country where poor or middle class people lead public policy. I agree that left wing people sound shrill to the ears of the masses and need to learn how to have conversations with their opponents rather than dismissing them as irrational religious nuts. Nevertheless, I find this article to be a right-wing critique of the American media and British liberals, rather than a reality check on motherhood, careers, and the mainstream media.
For a partisan, but effective critique of the Republican presidential ticket, see "Palin and McCain's Shotgun Marriage," by Frank Rich in the NYT.
Posted by cj at 12:36 PM | Comments (0)
August 28, 2008
patriotism, war, and short shrift for diplomacy
Buchanan pointing out the nationalistic riff of the speech emphasizes why it fell slightly flat to me.
As a nonviolent activist, I want my president to recognize the humanity of all humans, not just U.S. citizens. I want recognition that the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in Palestine is a major reason for the lack of peace in the Middle East.
I don't need to wrap myself in a U.S. flag to recognize the humanity of my fellow citizens. I understand that internationalism is a scary ideal; patriotism is the way to appeal to more American voters in the states that really matter - landlocked and small, that usually swing right.
I feel very alone tonight - listening to the "liberal" MSNBC anchors and their libertarian pundit gush over Obama.
Posted by cj at 9:02 PM | Comments (0)
Brian Williams said "mishegos" three times
Does America actually know what mishegos means? How does Brian Williams know what it means?
It means craziness by the way.
Here's what he said:
Well last night I talked about the mishegos. Three days of mishegos into the final night at Mile High. And the mishegos is all over. Tips of the hat all over the place from the nominee...as Chuck pointed out, to the Clintons...
But seriously, does middle America understand what the hell he's saying? I've heard the word my whole life and I was so startled to hear it said by a national news anchor that I couldn't follow what the hell he was saying. Especially since it was another slap at the Democratic party.
It's mishugge to have more than one qualified candidate for office? When did political parties stop being a place to grapple with political decisions? Why the hell is the media so stuck in internecine conflict? Why can't they accept that healthy conflict strengthens political conviction?
Oy gevalt!
simple Yiddish dictionary here, at Rachel Sage, a Jewish musician's site
Posted by cj at 8:33 PM | Comments (0)
The Preacher Was Better Than the Politician
I admit that I got chills when Obama started preaching. When he started talking about the March on Washington, that's when it got good.
The way he kept looking around the stadium was extremely distracting. I know I am partisan, but I believe Hillary was more credible than him. Maybe it's the bitter taste in my mouth over his inclusion of nuclear power and clean coal as a way to move into the future of energy policy. I'd like him to meet the people with lung cancer caused by coal pollution, go to the Appalachian mountain tops that were sheared off in pursuit of coal, meet the women and men living everyday dependent on the pharmaceutical industry, because the military industrial complex has polluted our environment with so much radiation that thyroid cancer is the only cancer on the rise in this country.
Let me be clear - I'm voting for Obama for president. I do not put any faith in him alone to do anything for this country. Progressives must continue to gather and push for real change.
Pray tell, how is the Electoral College the apex of democracy?
I don't trust any politician to bring about real change. I trust individuals, working collectively through citizen institutions to create the paradigm shift needed to overthrow the shackles of corporatocracy.
Posted by cj at 8:03 PM | Comments (0)
There Is No Such Thing As Safe Nuclear Power!
Obama just lost me.
He said "safe" nuclear power is part of his "new" energy plan. Give me a frickin break! There is NOTHING SAFE ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER!
There is no way safely dispose of the waste created in nuclear power plants. Living near a plant increases your risk of all sorts of diseases. Nuclear radiation is one of the reasons thyroid cancer is on the rise in this country.
Nuclear power is not a green energy source. It is a black, lethal, cancer-causing detriment to the world.
Nor, by the way, is there a thing called "clean" coal. Give me a break - stop raping the environment and the human race!
Posted by cj at 7:35 PM | Comments (0)
August 26, 2008
My Sister, Hillary Clinton
I have not been particularly engaged in the presidential campaign. See the last post for some of the reasons I wont waste my time on an undemocratic political process.
However, today, my Wellesley sister did me proud. Hillary Clinton gave an amazing speech - a speech that blew away every other speech given tonight. She inspired me to believe that change can come with a Democrat in the White House.
From women's right to vote to the human right to be free of slavery to modern struggles for justice, she made it clear: people are better off with Democratic leadership than they are with McCain.
No Way, No How, No McCain!
Posted by cj at 8:30 PM | Comments (0)
August 24, 2008
Movie Lecturing to Change the World
I just watch Lions for Lambs, which was accurately described by the critics as a lecture looking for a movie. I couldn't tell you how to make it a better movie, but on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, I find it worthwhile to ponder how to move from pontificating to action.
There are many things that bother me about society, but to start with the basics: there's a continental divide between well-informed citizens and the masses. The masses only hear about the horse race of politics, whereas the well-informed have some knowledge of policy issues, current events, and philosophical differences.
The blogosphere allows those informed citizens to connect with one another, and offers a glimpse at "the informed everyman" for the 24 hours news cycle to ponder.
And yet, the entire paradigm exists within rules. The people involved take for granted the notion that an Electoral College is a legitimate, democratic way to elect a leader. Many believe that free trade capitalism gave US citizens the freedoms we enjoy and that our society - from private health insurance to credit card oblivion - is the most advanced civilization in the world.
Like Lions for Lambs, I don't have the answers that will change the world. What I do know is that nothing will change without a fundamental shift towards real democracy - one person, one vote. Abolishing the Electoral College is the first step to real change. It's a joke to think that being "of the people" is a credential for winning the presidency. The vast majority of people are silenced because they live in major cities; it is the small, rural, majority white states that make a difference in who becomes president. Forget about making a difference in that race if you live in Chicago, Los Angeles or New York. I'm constantly amazed at the number of engaged citizens who pay no attention to the fact that their votes are swallowed by the great appeasement of slave-owning colonies at this country's founding.
So not only are political debates silenced by the oppressive two party system, a simple vote between two men for the most important job in the world is at the mercy of ethanol farmers in Iowa and bison hunters in Montana.
This country is afraid to see that the emperor has no clothes. Don't talk to me about healthcare unless you're committed to cutting venal insurance companies out of the process. Don't mention the economy if you can't recognize the connection between corporate greed and the ever-diminishing average U.S. paycheck, ballooning individual debt, and utter lack of fiscal security in retirement caused by the demise of real pensions.
The fundamental flaws in our society cannot be changed with slogans or even by choosing a particular candidate for president. We need to begin with better education, not just of our school-age children, but of our voting-age citizens. Instead of nattering about poll numbers and describing lusty oratory, we need reporters to explain policy issues and the differences between the candidates' perspectives.
We need cultural touch stones to be more than a surprising performance in Tropic Thunder by a great actor with a penchant for cult beliefs. Fine art should not be relegated to the playground of Russian oligarchs who made their millions by raping their fellow citizens of the natural resources rightfully owned by the people as a whole. Work days should not leave us so deprived of mental space and physical time that a black box full of "reality" programming and ridiculous competitions is the only reprieve we have from chasing the almighty dollar.
This paradigm shift can only begin when we make civic engagement a priority. We need to build citizen advocacy institutions. We need to do more than supporting the paid activism of professional abortion protectors, queer rights advocates, and bloggers. We need to work to build institutions that allow us to be involved in the process - not just by signing the next online petition, but that marry the experience of professional activists with the passion of volunteer citizens. Only by combining the power of the individual in community with the insight of full-time peace and justice workers will we change the fundamental demons plaguing our world.
When I graduated college, I made a commitment to embody this ideal by continuing to be an active member of Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF). Eight years later, after two terms on the national board, I am often disheartened by the lack of real progress made in connecting the real challenges faced by ordinary Americans with the country's political discourse. Nevertheless, I am determined to continue my support for issue advocacy by ordinary citizens within this country and citizen diplomacy on a global level as the only way to create the social upheaval needed to create a the more just society we should pass on to the generations to come.
Thus ends my rant inspired by Redford's 90 minute civics lesson.
Posted by cj at 3:32 PM | Comments (0)
June 13, 2008
RIP Tim Russert
Another shocking death. Can you imagine celebrating your son's college graduation, then going back to work and collapsing from a massive heart attack? One minute you're the lynchpin of mainstream media's political journalism inner circle, the next minute you cease to exist.
Rest in peace, Tim. My heart goes out to your family.
NBC covverage of Tim's death at their studio at 58.
Daniel Drezner's odd post (with a comment from me).
Posted by cj at 11:40 PM | Comments (0)
May 24, 2008
Dagmar Barnouw, denouncer of the hierarchy of suffering, died
I was powerfully moved by the LAT obituary of Dagmar Barnouw, a USC professor who passed away on May 14. She had a stroke in April and never regained consciousness.
[Amazon link added.]
In her most recent book, "War in the Empty Air: Victims, Perpetrators, and Postwar Germans" (2005), Barnouw examined Germans' failure to acknowledge and mourn their war dead and the devastation German citizens suffered in Allied air raids.After the war, ordinary Germans were viewed collectively as perpetrators of the Holocaust and responsible for World War II. Silenced by this presumed guilt, even German war remembrances maintained an exclusive focus on Jewish victims of the Nazi regime, to the detriment of historical reality, she wrote.
I'm fascinated to learn of an intellectual who wrote passionately about the need to understand post-WWII in totality, rather than only through the lens of the Holocaust. It is a real shame that so many Americans, especially Jewish Americans, are indoctrinated to believe that Jewish suffering is somehow worse than the suffering that occurs throughout the world on a daily basis. That genocide was over 60 years ago and many genocides have occurred and are being perpetuated since then. Yet, somehow the refrain "never forget" is allowed to continue as an excuse for apartheid in Israel and starvation in Palestine.
Let me be clear: the Holocaust was a tragedy of incredible proportions. I have no doubt that we lost untold generations of brilliant people. I acknowledge that it was the most significant event for the Jewish people in the 20th century. However nothing - not the Holocaust or the pogroms of Russia that forced my family to flee to the U.S. or any other aspect of Jewish history - makes me or my people the world's most suffering ethnicity. Indeed, I believe this past suffering has been used to justify a horrific amount of racism and discrimination and colonial exploitation in Israel and Palestine.
I do not understand how my religion, which has so many threads of peaceful nonviolent resistance in its history, and my people, who have been on the forefront of the movements for social change, have become so entrenched in bigotry and discrimination. I fear that writing these words makes me a larger target for political reprisal. My friends joke that they don't want to stand too close to me walking down a street - fearing an assassin will be off-target and shoot them instead. (I actually found this to be the strangest aspect of my trip to NYC; my friends who do not participate in social activism seem to believe my influence and notoriety is any larger than the few people who occasionally read this blog.)
But this post was not supposed to be about me, rather about Dagmar Barnouw, whose books I must search out and read.
Read about her life from USC, including her enduring marriage to a man who fell in love with her at first sight.
I hope to have the courage to speak and write as passionately as Dagmar, even if it makes many people uncomfortable.
Posted by cj at 1:23 PM | Comments (0)
April 6, 2008
Gender: Harder to Forget Than Ethnicity
Let me be clear: if one must make a hierarchy of inequality, white privilege affords me greater access into the halls of power than being a woman diminishes. Nevertheless, as a woman, my voice is less powerful than my male counterpart, particularly when advocating for peace and justice. How often are women dismissed as having "motherly inclinations" towards peace, incapable of understanding the harsh necessity of war? How often must our national leaders who happen to be female castrate themselves on the decks of warships to assure a foolish electorate that they are man enough to command an army?
Nicholas Kristof has a powerful Op-Ed in today's NYT, "Our Racist, Sexist Selves," that reminds us of the power of genitals. I speak plainly because this truth is so often denied in both the mainstream media and popular culture: Women Are Not Equal. The Women's Movement Cannot Be Dead. There Is Much That Still Needs to Be Done to Create Gender Equality. Los Derechos de Las Mujeres Son Los Derechos de Humanidad.
Until we start talking about the real ethnic differences that divide us, and the common humanity that unites us;
Until free-trade capitalism's reliance on extreme economic disparity is confronted;
Until democratic dialog inspires as much participation as American Idol voting,
the Movements for Change must continue.
Posted by cj at 10:41 PM | Comments (0)
March 30, 2008
Influencing the World: One Click at a Time
I often get buried in paid direct marketing work and unpaid national peace organization structural committees and find it difficult to keep up with the daily new cycles and cyber chatter. I find it ironic that as a woman who has become buried in offline responsibilities, I'm being asked to be a web 2.0 expert for my league.
According to the NYT, most people my age and younger are chatting on Facebook, MySpace, and their blogs about presidential YouTube clips. There's a free PDF about online political advocacy at e-politics. The Feminist Peace Network reminds me that there are lots of people who see that peace cannot be created without gender justice.
I'm not sure how to break through the clutter, have my voice heard, and influence public opinion. I do know I want to spend more time keeping up with Daniel Drezner (who lives the life I sometimes wish I had) and less time on conference calls.
Posted by cj at 9:19 PM | Comments (0)
February 4, 2008
Candidates on YouTube
A MoveOn email sent me watching a clip on YouTube for Obama, which made me wonder about Hillary's online campaigning. I heard this morning on The Today Show that Obama was moving ahead in the cool internet factor, but you really have to see it to believe it.
Here's the Obama video:
And here's my man from the 04 race, General Wesley Clark for Hillary:
She got a more home-made endorsement from Anne Rice, the author of the famous Vampire Chronicles and more recently known for her Christianity:
I'm not posting the "Making of the Band" spoof that attempts to show the kids that Hillary is their kind of candidate. If you're looking for prophetic inspiration, Obama is probably your choice. If you think experience matters, Hillary is the one to vote for. Personally, I'm still waffling.
Posted by cj at 9:16 PM | Comments (0)
February 2, 2008
Super Tuesday Comin in Cali
Last night a coworker asked me who I'm voting for in the primary on Tuesday. My response was rather ambivalent. I don't trust the electoral process for many reasons. First, the two-party system eliminates the ability to create truly progressive change. To get legislation passed in Congress, so many people have to agree with it that it's impossible to truly change the system. Corporate interest trumps individual rights on almost every issue. Take healthcare for example: neither Obama or Clinton inspires me at all on this issue because they refuse to admit what is painfully obvious: the US healthcare system is broken because we waste more money creating profit for the insurance industry than we do paying for healthcare. Any "fix" that doesn't involve dismantling the private insurance industry is doomed to failure. When people in other countries get cancer or diabetes or any other disease, they don't have to worry if they make enough money to cover the cost of their care. Rather, their interaction with health professionals revolves around their need for healthcare and their bottom line is never affected. As a thyroid cancer survivor, I know I'm shackled to corporate America for the rest of my life because it is impossible for me to get the healthcare I need without a group policy. Further, no one is researching the cause of thyroid cancer - or stopping the dumping of industrial waste that has caused it to be the only cancer whose occurrence is rising.
So, why should I put a lot of energy into discerning the difference between two candidates beholden to a broken system? Well, I am a member of the Democratic party, so I should at least be making an informed decision on Tuesday. The truth is, Obama is a much more inspiring speaker than Clinton. He's charismatic, charming, and yes, even reminds me of John F. Kennedy. But is that enough? After all, while Kennedy performed well during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was proceeded by his disastrous leadership in the Bay of Pigs invasion.
In my mind, a presidential candidate's foreign policy is always the most important thing to judge him/her on, regardless of whether or not there's a "war on terrorism" happening. This is because everything domestic the president does is guided by the laws enacted by Congress, whereas the executive branch truly leads the nation in its international interaction. We have no choice but to accept that we live in a global economy with a global community, and I want a president with experience to be the chief ambassador of this country. I have more faith in Clinton's knowledge of foreign affairs than I do in Obama's.
Of course, there's also the historic moment bit of the contest. My father constantly points out that I should strongly support Hillary because we share an alma mater. And of course, there's plenty of second generation feminists who will tell you that young women who don't support Clinton don't appreciate the sacrifice and hard work of the women's movement and the need for women to support women candidates. It's a tired, patronizing drone that I don't think any young woman should take seriously. Because the truth is, gender and ethnic discrimination cannot be separated. On the scale of history, electing either a black man or a white woman would be an important milestone for this country. Young women recognize this and probably take gender out of the equation when choosing between the candidates, because we've grown up understanding the intersections of racial and gender bias.
Nevertheless, I've watched several of the Democratic debates over the last few months and Clinton has consistently seemed the stronger candidate in my mind. Of course, this says nothing about her electability since in the last two elections, the American people chose the dumbest candidate on the stage for their president.
Or did we?
The other reason I'm not obsessed with the presidential race is because I know it is inherently undemocratic. The electoral college system is a vestige of a time when men didn't trust the people and thought States were more important than individual citizens. Until the day that my vote in Los Angeles counts for exactly the same amount as a voter in Des Moines, I will continue to believe the presidential election process is inherently undemocratic. There is absolutely nothing about rural voters that make them needy of a stronger voice in the democratic process than any other minority in this country. In fact, I'd argue that the disproportionate value of rural voters has led to some of the worst legislation in this country's history: Farm Bills that feed the coffers of agribusiness and leave US school children with unhealthy meals, "alternative energy" policy that is completely fuel inefficient and has increased the poverty and hunger of our Mexican neighbors by raising the price of corn, and so forth.
So yeah, I'll probably be voting for Clinton on Tuesday. But it wont be the most interesting political act I do in the coming week. I consider my WILPF work more important to the future of society than any ballot I cast. Nevertheless, it is my civic duty to vote, and I will.
Posted by cj at 3:40 PM | Comments (0)
December 31, 2007
Social Upheaval in 2008
A lot has happened in the world in 2007. I didn't keep up with the news in the past year the way I did in previous years - you can read about some of what I was up to on angelheaded hipster, my other blog. I even forgot that Time named "You" person of the year.
The mainstream media has been focused on the 08 presidential race horse race since at least January 07. More air time was spent on Sunday morning talk shows discussing candidates' relative viability in Iowa and New Hampshire than was spent discussing the substantial policy positions that differentiate them. Scariest statistic learned from this over-flow of information: only 5.7% of eligible voters participate in the 2004 Iowa caucuses. Tell me again why Angelenos live in too big of a city to have our votes count equally with those in rural states.
Elections haven't been going well around the world - among corruption charges, Kenya's elections are bloodier than normal (yes, sadly, violence is a regular aspect of national elections there). They aren't going well in Pakistan either, where Benazir Bhutto lost her life attempting to bring democracy back to a country plagued by military dictatorship buttressed by US foreign aid. Many in the US think democracy is duking it out with socialism in Venezuela, but personally I think the story is more complicated than that.
I'm looking forward to a New Year when people's movements for change encourage more people to get involved in social change. I look forward to more people believing they can make a difference - when more people delve deeply into the issues that intertwine us all, make their voices heard, and start building the nonviolent movements for change that will create the social upheaval needed to build a more just, peaceful world.
I believe we will be the change we wish to see in 2008. I believe together we will change the world. I believe 2008 will be more peaceful and just. I look forward to the New Year.
Want to support women's advocacy for peace & justice both in the US and throughout the world? Then give a tax deductible contribution to the Jane Addams Peace Association.
To join the world's oldest women's peace organization, click here.
Posted by cj at 8:19 PM | Comments (0)
October 7, 2007
We'll Be Paying for Empire Expansion Till the End of Time
This Just In: Paying for war when it occurs is fiscally irresponsible. That is, if you believe the mouthpiece of the administration, the White House press secretary. If the war hawks have their way, we'll be paying for this empire expansion till the end of time.
But that's okay, because the surge is making Iraqis safer. The Public Editor of the NYT makes the case that maybe there's been a decrease in the number of civilian casualties since the surge began. Then again, he ends the column by reminding us that it is still unsafe to live in Baghdad, according to an article written by 15 NYT reporters (never mind what's happening elsewhere in Iraq - it's too unsafe for US writers to venture beyond Baghdad).
Let's not get bogged down in details. It's important to remember the frame through which the occupation of foreign countries became acceptable to the US public: by creating a culture of fear that blames the ills of the world on so-called "Islamofascists." Nevermind that the word is meaningless. Pay no attention to reality: fascism is alive and well in the Western world. Even university courses on political science in the US have a difficult time defining fascism. Perhaps because the core of fascism is simple: the military & corporations taking control of the levers of political power. Instead of allowing this simple definition of fascism to be understood, Western leaders propel a a blurry, fearful understanding of a combination of racism and authoritarianism as the only "true" definition of fascism. Furthermore, instead of debating people who recognize the full scope of power held by the military industrial complex, Western political and intellectual "leaders" dismiss us as crazy left-wing nut cases.
Military force must always be the last resort of states and the international community. As Albert Camus said:
Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed, but in every case it is someone else’s blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything.Do not be persuaded by the rhetorical flourish of individuals who believe democracy and freedom can be created through bloodshed and military occupation. The monolingual, jingoist armed forces of the US are even less capable of building peace in the Middle East than the biased State Department.
The safety of the world relies on more individuals becoming engaged in the political process, supporting international institutions, creating dialog with people in other countries, and demanding that the international political and economic structures be based on human security and human needs rather than on corporate greed.
Camus quote from this Op-Ed piece in today's NYT.
Posted by cj at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)
September 16, 2007
The War Goes On...and the Pundits Still Think Division Is Just
On This Week, the pundits gently explained that the only way forward in Iraq is further division "like in the Balkans." Let's be clear: Yugoslavia began with ethnic enclaves, and was further divided by genocide. Iraq began with ethnic diversity (even in the Kurdish North) and because of US incompetence, is being divided by genocide.
Let's flip this scenario around and look at crime in the US. A lot of it is ethnically-based. For example, Latinos and Blacks in LA are more adversely affected by violent crime than other ethnicities. Using the logic of US politicians and pundits, the way to deter crime is to force Latinos to live in one part of the city and Black to live in the opposite. Their governments should operate autonomously because obviously, they innately can't get along. And whites, should stay in the middle-land between these two "warring factions" because clearly the ethnicities are incapable of getting along.
When you look at the US plan for "peace building" in Iraq through the lens of a US city, you realize how utterly ridiculous & asinine it really is. Humans are extremely capable of accepting diversity: it is leaders who exploit differences in order to garner power. US'ers don't even bother to learn the language of the lands they occupy, let alone understand the culture. We're so enamored by the Israeli government that our government seems convinced that Arabs are incapable of rational thought or rational politics. Let's be clear: US companies are stealing taxpayer money and not providing Iraqis with basic services like electricity and clean water. Thugs have exploited the chaos created by the US occupation to hold people for ransom, and kill indiscriminately as members of the Interior Ministry.
Not to mention the chaos we've unleashed in Afghanistan. I admit - I stupidly thought we were going into Afghanistan to help its people, especially its women who were so cruelly exploited and subjugated by the Taliban. Instead, we've added a sheen of legitimacy to a bunch of warlords and the US occupation of Iraq, along with Britney's latest drunken foibles, offers a great cover up to the expansion of al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Here's hoping some intelligence enters the intelligentsia in the next year.
Posted by cj at 9:57 PM | Comments (0)
September 11, 2007
Support the UN Human Rights Council
It is a shame that the UN Human Rights Council has been unable to take strong stances on more issues in the world. I am not an expert on UN reform, so I cannot speak to what is holding it back from completely denouncing the genocide in Darfur. I do know that the US government looks like morons for trying to cut off funding to the organization. The US Congress claims that the council is bias against Israel - biased because it has denounced Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine and Israel's illegal war on Lebanon. It is a testamount to the Israel Lobby (both Jewish and Gentile), that cutting off funding to the Council has bipartisan support in the US.
Please tell your Congressional representatives that the only way to further human rights is to support the international organization created to enforce them. Human Rights for All People - not just those who look like us.
AP article by Justin Bergman
Washington Times article by Betsy Pitsik
HRC opened its 6th session on Monday
Posted by cj at 10:49 PM | Comments (0)
September 9, 2007
The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself
If you listen to Republican presidential candidates and Sunday morning pundits, you'd assume that the only way to project power and create security is to be the biggest bully in the world, with the most active military. Political discussion in the US media allows the following fascinating range of discussion on security: those who only understand US culture and think everyone hates our freedom and we therefore have to teach them democracy through the barrel of a gun and those who only understand US culture and think we can teach the world freedom through a combination of military force and free-market capitalism.
Do you ever hear a peace expert asked for their opinion? I'm not talking about those folks who organize marches on the mall, I mean people who study the root causes of war and can explain what happens in the world based on a nuanced understanding of history. Not only do US legislators, military, and pundits not understand Iraq, they don't understand the basic reasons that ethnic conflict becomes ethnic violence.
The answer to the chaos in Iraq is not splitting the country up by "ethnic regions." First, people don't live in schtetls. It's not like the entire populace hates each other b/c of ethnic differences. Differences are being exploited by strong men seeking power; the Other is a powerful tool in rallying support for a leader. Forcing the populace to follow these bullies into separate states is a white man's way of dealing with racial violence. The US has never understood the basics of racial justice, so how can we possibly lead another country into an ethnically diverse, working democracy?
Second, why does no one say "hey idiots - perhaps we should turn this operation over to the UN Peacekeeping?" Take a look at the official site of the DPKO. I fundamentally believe that the only way to move forward in creating peace is to work through the UN. Many things have gone wrong in past and current missions, but if we honestly supported the UN, and implemented Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, I believe we would be closer to achieving real security for Iraq and the world.
Security means more than having the biggest gun. Human security is dependent on a continuous food supply, access to healthcare, a place to sleep, and peace with neighbors.
I'm constantly fascinated by the lack of real discussion on the Sunday gab fests. I'm watching last week's Real Time with Bill Maher show and Barbara Bodine is offering more insight on Iraq "reconstruction" than 2 hrs of male talking heads on ABC and NBC. Slate tells me I must read the NYT and WaPo stories on Iraq as background to the coming week's announcements. Quite honestly, I'm done wasting my time on such articles. Until SCR 1325 and human security become part of the dialog, what's the point of me reading mainstream news accounts of the US imperialistic occupation of the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world?
Posted by cj at 3:53 PM | Comments (0)
July 1, 2007
Sunday Morning Chatter on a Sunday Afternoon
Sec "Homeland Security" Chertoff was on both This Week and MtP today. George tried to get him to give up the deets on Britain - the way he's done in previous crises - and this time he demurred. Here's the deal on his constant reiteration of "I'll let the Brits determine when they say what:" that's how the Brits deal with the press. They don't try cases in the Court of the Media, the way the Shrub administration has done since they got the White House bully pulpit. For goodness sake, they regrouped domestic security units into the biggest misnomer ever - "homeland" security. If its really security for the homeland, I guess only Native Americans deserve to be secure in this country. Let's go talk to the folks who hacked up the sacred Black Hills to create Mount Rushmore (and steal the gold) about that idea...
Right. Back to the Sunday morning blather. George gathered an all-female panel. Appears the men were too busy bbq-ing. There was still only one woman of color on the panel and they seemed to all be over 50. I've got nothing against my older, DC-conservative sisters, but for goodness sake, are there no younger, articulate females available to ramble for an hour in the morning?
The maternalistic white women tried to explain to the lone black woman on the panel that the Supreme Court decision that over-turned Brown v. the Board of Education was actually a good thing. Because, you see, the important thing is to create great public education in all communities, not integration or color-blind openings. It's Appalling. Simple Appalling that more of the country is not renouncing this horrific, racist decision. Public education has taken another blow. Our problems started when we made it dependent on real estate tax revenue which makes it inherently unfair. Next, we have completely unreasonable expectations of public schools: for a variety of reasons, public schools have never had higher than 50% high school graduation rates when all students who started in first grade are counted. We want quick fixes: so instead of dismantling bloated bureaucracies, we grant charters and privatize larger and larger chunks of our public system. We treat students like cattle and force them to "learn" to standardized tests, rather than learning in depth on multiple subjects.
In Memoriam told me Joel Siegel died. I didn't even know he was sick.
Onto MtP - Chertoff blathered and managed to say even less he did on This Week. Then Tim talked with Senator Patrick Leahy...and then he had his own round table that included one of the most annoying men in politics - Tavis Smiley. The man who named himself the Communicator for All Black People. They rehashed the recent Dem Pres candidates debate, which occurred on the campus of a historically black college.
Other things happened. But it all happened yesterday and by today, most of the banter seeped out of my head.
Posted by cj at 2:39 PM | Comments (0)