Keeping It Real

I started this post to briefly comment on the tone of political rhetoric in light of the Arizona shootings, but I was watching The View the other day, and as usual, they were saying things (or omitting things) that got on my nerves, so I'm going to discuss them both.

First, Sherri told Elisabeth that every situation is not all black and white and Whoopi made the joke that it is at their table. Then Barbara said not to her because she doesn't see color; that was the way she was raised. I know she thinks that is good, but to me, it is not. It is, at best, a cop out and at worst, racist. As a cop out, it doesn't require you to make any distinctions among people when people are filled with distinctions and nuance. It's like when schools have zero tolerance policies and they don't have to think through the differences in a student bringing a plastic knife to school and a machete.

It can be racist in that it allows one to assume everyone is like them, that they want to be like them. (Because, if we're honest, we relate to people from our own frame of reference first and foremost.) It denies their culture, their history, and their experience.

I can't speak for every racial and ethnic minority or every black person, for that matter, but I want you to see me as black. I am a black woman and I am proud of it; I love being black. Being a black woman affects the way I experience the world. I don't see anything wrong with it and I don't see anything wrong with people recognizing my race. It becomes problematic when you think (consciously or unconsciously) that being black somehow makes me less than or when you begin to assume certain negative things about me just because of my race (or my gender).

Switching gears:

There's so much discussion now about the tone of political rhetoric and whose to blame for the tragedy in Arizona. It seems the politically correct thing to say is that no one is to blame but the shooter and that there's vitriolic talk on both sides of the political aisle. Maybe, but it seems to me that some people are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. I will use as an example Sarah Palin because the focus has been on her, but she is not the only one who does this. Rappers, actors, etc. do it, too. Whenever something negative happens and fingers are pointed at popular points of influence, everyone is quick to assert their blamelessness. They had no influence over that emotionally or mentally disturbed person. But in times of positivity and financial opportunity, then they are glad to have influence.

Sarah Palin gives speeches, writes books, and garners high ratings on television. She has been called a king maker because of her influence in getting people elected to office. How in the world can she abdicate her influence now? I don't believe she intended for that disturbed man in Arizona to kill people, but she put her words out there and she has to understand that ill people are going to take them how they take them. She cannot claim that her words do not add to the violent tone of political debate now when that's part of how she makes her bread and butter.

Rappers and rockers are similar. They make money influencing people; if their words and music had no power, no one would buy it. So, when that power extends itself in a way that is unfavorable, it is disingenuous for them to say, "I have no power. I have no influence." Because that's not true and they don't really want it to be true or they would be out of business.

Just keep it real, folks.

Insulting My Intelligence

I refuse to believe that Americans are as stupid as politicians and the media believe they are. I had my definite opinions about Biden and Palin's performance last night during the VP debate, but I was interested to know what the political pundits had to say. True to form, Democratic sympathizers thought Biden did great and Republican sympathizers thought Palin did a good job. Many (not so many Republicans) admitted that expectations were so low for Palin that, of course, a gaffe-free performance would be like a home run. But really, is that all it takes to be outstanding?

I was insulted that I was supposed to accept Palin's evasive and rehearsed answers and arrogant refusal to respond to the moderator as a stellar performance. Have the standards for American excellence become so low that one does not have to do well, they only have to not mess up, for us to accept it as a win? Do the "people in the know" expect so little of Americans that we are to accept mediocrity as excellence?

These low expectations of Americans are also revealed in the assertions that Biden did not do well because he was too professorial. Like they said of Obama at the Saddleback forum, his answers were too nuanced and therefore would not resonate well with the American public. So, are they saying that Americans are too stupid to understand that life's situations are not always black and white, easily characterized by a catchy slogan? Do they not have enough faith in the American public to believe that they realize that life is complicated?
Maybe they don't think much of America's intellect, but, my goodness, give us a little credit.

Woman Wonders

I've been away far too long. But I have just been speechless at what is going on in America--the Wall Street financial crisis, Obama Waffles, race as a factor in the election, Palin. There is just so much I did not know where to begin. But today, I just got to talk about women stuff.

As a woman, I am excited by the prospect of female achievement. I celebrate Women's History Month in March and make sure that my students are well aware of it. In my writing, I always insert the accomplishments of women alongside the oft touted accomplishments of men. I correct people (when possible) when they in any way ignore the presence and person of women. So, Gov. Sarah Palin's nomination as Vice President should be thrilling to me. But it's not. I believe that while Palin's nomination and even possible victory would be a victory for women on the surface, ultimately, it will not.

It seems that Palin's nomination pretty much amounts to affirmative action. Not affirmative action as it was intended by the Black leaders who fought for it (the opportunity for qualified minorities to be considered regardless of their physical characteristics), but affirmative action as many people think it is today--the selection of a person based on a physical characteristic regardless of qualification. I've heard people say that Palin isn't smart; I don't know her so I can't speak to her intellect. From what I can discern about her qualifications and the baggage that surrounds her, however, it seems clear that she is truly an affirmative action choice. She has a degree in Journalism that she earned after attending several schools; she was the governor of a state that in no way resembles the diversity of the nation; she doesn't seem to be well aware of key political issues like the economy and the war; and her only foreign policy experience is that she can see Russia from her home. Let me stop there for a moment. When Charlie Gibson asked her about her insights into Russian actions, she actually said "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." If anyone expected more of her than to be a token woman, would they have accepted that answer from her? Wouldn't they have demanded more? It appears that she was chosen because she is a woman--not the most qualified woman, but a woman who will get votes because she is a woman. It is not surprising that she is an affirmative action pick because, contrary to popular belief, White women are the greatest recipients of affirmative action hiring.

This is bad. It's bad not only for the country for obvious reasons, but bad for women because she will be representative of all women in power. If she can't do the job, then it will mean that women just aren't ready for this position. It's sort of like what people thought in the early 90s when Shannon Faulkner couldn't hack it at The Citadel. After all that protest and talk about the first woman getting into the all-male military school, when she couldn't meet the standards, she made all women look bad. True, other women have enrolled in the school since, but her failure validated all of the naysayers and sexists. This is the problem with affirmative action picks when they are not made in the spirit of true affirmative action measures.

The Republican handling of Gov. Palin is already giving women a bad name. Although they are alleging sexism in every arena, by not allowing her to take questions and acting as if the hard-hitting questions (which I am really skeptical of her receiving) will be too much for her (a Journalism major who was once a member of the same press), they are saying that this woman can't handle it. Protecting her as women have been protected and pedestaled for generations says that she is helpless and unable to handle herself in the face of tough situations. In what way does this "protection" say that as a woman she is prepared to face anything that men can face?

As a woman I am offended by the way Sarah Palin has been presented to the public. They have made light of the very real issue of sexism, calling actions sexist that clearly aren't. Asking a question she'd rather not answer? Questioning her baby's parentage as a research question that never gets printed as fact? This is not sexism; this is journalism. Calling things sexist that aren't sexism mitigates actual instances of discrimination and oppression. Like the boy who cried wolf, people are less likely to respond when the real thing rears its ugly head. I am offended that as a woman Palin is allowing this to happen. I wonder why she is willing to do so.

I'm not gonna write you a love song 'cause you asked me to . . .

Okay, The Diva, I see that you have gotten over trying to hold back.

You've just touched so many of the ideas that are frustrating here. The media thing is so very true. Did you notice many (or any) commentaries that pointed out the absence of a flag pin either on Palin or on McCain? How many reporters illustrate the ways in which Palin's speech was filled with "truthiness"? How many will call Bristol a "baby mama"--which she actually is, as opposed to the married-before-babies Michelle Obama? How many will call Cindy a junkie, one of many labels heaped upon addicts when they are not millionaires?

Here's what is driving me crazy tonight, though: my country and my religion are two different things. This convention is singing love of country like it's hymn number 562. I don't really see the need for my President to love America. I just need for you like it and care about me in the neighborly, what-would-Jesus-do kind of way. To be smart and sound and use good judgment.

Sarah Palin's snotty reference last night to the love she's always had for America doesn't move me. I don't feel so romantic when I think of Sean Bell riddled with policemen's gunshots on his wedding day or people drowning in New Orleans while the media calls them thieves. When you work hard (a phrase which also keeps popping up) at 2 or 3 jobs and you still don't live in a safe neighborhood or have good schools or can't afford to get sick, when people sworn to take care of the country look right past you, perhaps your relationship with America is a little more complicated. Palin's (and Cindy McCain's) kind of simplistic thoughtlessness is exactly the brand of silliness that "energizes the base" but remains unproductive. It's what you are talking about when you write that the party is far too self-righteous. That, coupled with McCain's clear desperation to be President, is too much for me to take. That POW thing is big; I get it. But I still don't worship this country.

I live in the world. The whole world. And God's children live everywhere in it, not just in America. McCain's football cheer declaring, "Make no mistake, we're going to win!" reminds me of the hype around rival high schools. I didn't choose my high school (which, by the way, was mired in historical racial and gender discrimination that were constant obstacles); I just tried to bloom where I was planted, and I saw what was good as well as what was a foot in my neck. Screaming, "We're number one!" always seemed a little silly to me--and I was a cheerleader! Listening to him tonight, I thought about the fact that my initial presence in America is just a fact of my birth. For some people, it's a definite choice. Either way, it's a pretty good place to be at this point in history. But I don't worship her. Patriotism is not my religion.

Eureka

So hard to love Republicans? It's hard to like them. Because of those "snooty, snotty, snide" tones as well as their hypocrisy and manipulation of people and ideologies, they demonstrate time and time again, as Palin said last night of the media, they don't care about your approval or (this is me) you and yours.

I have a bias; I support Obama and usually, the Democratic candidate. I don't want to do so blindly so I am open to the faults of the Democrats and at times, I am open to supporting other viable candidates for office. This also means that I try to be aware of every side and so I have been trying to watch the RNC this week. It has not been easy. In listening to Giuliani last night, I heard the snideness, as if working with the people to effect change is not only less than noble, but ridiculous. Palin also attacked Obama on his grassroots activity, drawing a sarcastic comparison between being a community organizer and being a mayor of a town of 6000+ and saying that she would tell us what she did as mayor which was to have responsibilities. I was irritated, not only because she discounted working with the people (you know, the everyday Joe's and Jane's with whom her "small town values" insist that she connects), but also because she did not actually say what she did every day as mayor of a town of 6000+. It has been proven time and again during this campaign that Republican ideas of responsibilities and achievement mean different things than the definitions of regular people so actual examples would have been great. (I'm not dismissing the work of mayors of small towns; just wondering if it qualifies you to be almost-president.) But like Giuliani's, Palin's speech was filled with vagueness, sarcasm and snideness.

Part of this attitude of snideness comes from self-righteousness. Republicans demonstrate that they feel they are the sole messengers from God, the sole owners of patriotism and the only ones who cannot be questioned. On anything. From the top down, this comes from having a lot of money. From the bottom up, it comes from dogmatically thinking you have the only right answers about God.

With this attitude, you can easily shape the truth to fit your version of it. They are artists, Steel Magnolia; didn't you know? Honestly, they are incredibly talented and skilled in the art of manipulation and the American people just accept it without question. I mean, really, there are actually pundits out there who are explaining that the McCain campaign is using this "the-media-is-attacking-me" strategy as a campaign tactic to look like the underdog, thus inflaming the base and incurring favor with the undecideds. Although it is revealed as a tactic, people are still buying it. But tell me, how is the media attacking when (1) they don't follow up on any questions and (2) they have only good things to say about the McCains, if anything at all?

I watched Meet the Press on Sunday (I miss Tim Russert) and Tom Brokaw just allowed the McCain surrogate to state his press releases without question. Didn't call him on anything. This morning on The Early Show, they told us 5 things we didn't know about Cindy McCain. A lot of people don't know she had a drug problem (drugs she stole from her non-profit), but I guess it was more important to know that she drives race cars and has three Blackberries. There's no attack from the media on the McCain's, although admittedly, there were a lot of questions about Palin, as it should be since we don't know her and she is trying to be almost-president. How many dern times did we have to see Rev. Jeremiah Wright's clip even after Obama denounced his ideas? The cry about the media is a tactic. We know it. But it will probably work and it's getting the media to back off.

Another tactic they are using is to allege sexism, even when it's not there. Questioning Palin's qualifications is not sexist, but wearing a pin that says "The hottest babe" (as seen at the RNC) seems to smell like it. Because it is such a hot-button issue, the media is tiptoeing around Palin so they won't be accused of being sexist. Where are my JOURNALISTS, those in pursuit of truth whether good or bad? It seems now we only have news reporters. By avoiding any criticisms, members of the media don't actually pursue the truth. They, along with the American public, fall victim to the right's manipulation of the truth.

Which brings us back one mo' time to spin. Here's an interesting link that breaks down the Republican manner of speech; it reveals the artistry of spin.

It still amazes me that Palin gets to use her children for her political advancement--why do I know that Track is going to be deployed on September 11? why can I pick baby Trig out of a line-up although I have never met him in person? why would parents of special needs children know they have a friend in the White House?--but no one can even bring up her pregnant teen-aged daughter when it directly relates to her beliefs and policies. Jon Stewart discussed it well in his interview with Newt Gingrich last night.

The Republican strategy is brilliant because most people fall for it. Like the sheep you talk against your students becoming, people get scared and fall over. There is no fight, no calling them on their mess. Few people seem to want to think through anything; they just want to feel. This is a very frustrating state of affairs.

Tru Dat

TD, I second your emotions on all of your last few posts. The DNC was exciting, but exhausting. Whatever happens now, I'm so glad I lived to see a major party nominate a minority person to run. I really didn't think it would happen in my lifetime. I had only hoped that my children would be a witness. Instead, I got to answer my daughter when she saw Obama on TV and asked, "Who's that, Mommy?" I was so thrilled to say, "He might be the President."

I, too, was trying to back off of Palin and her daughter and babies and whatnot. But the sheer absurdity has me shaking my head. I mean, seriously? Seriously? Are we really going to pretend that the Republican campaign for President isn't complete nonsense? That teenage sex and ill-advised pregnancies are only a "family matter" for people who have made it a major issue? Seriously?

I'm sorry that the Palin family has so much to deal with right now. But I don't feel any more sad for them than I do for families with one parent instead of two (whatever the reason for it) and two jobs instead of one; families who can hardly afford to feed, clothe, and house their 5 children and who have one more on the way (whatever the reason); families who are likely to have inadequate or non-existent health insurance, on which the grandchild will probably not be covered. The take-away message here, I think, comes back to resources, just as it usually does. If you have them, you can afford to make some mistakes, and your cohorts will tell you that it's not all about your morals. If you don't have resources, then your (lack of) morals is the only thing that defines you and you deserve what you get.

There's never any shame in having a baby, so I don't have a judgment about that, but some people should probably watch out for shattering glass and flying rocks. On that same vein, people who thought that Katrina was God's judgment for sin in New Orleans might want to consider what it means that Gustav blows in just as the RNC is trying to happen . . . .

Spin City

I had decided that I would not comment on Gov. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter because although I have been following the news and blog coverage of it intensely, I wasn't sure I wanted to add to it. But here's the thing: the spin is making me sick. This teenage girl has gotten pregnant outside of marriage and the Republican talking heads are saying that this is a private matter and Palin is demonstrating that she is a strong woman to deal with this. Palin also said in her press release that she is proud of her daughter.

What? Why is it okay for her to use her oldest son's status as a soldier about to go to Iraq and her youngest son's condition as a baby with Down's Syndrome for her political benefit, but it is not okay to discuss her daughter's pregnancy? Especially when she advocates for Abstinence-Only sex education. I think that Palin makes this private, family matter an issue that we can discuss because it speaks to the effectiveness of her choices. We don't know what's going on behind people's closed doors, but we can assume that she taught and advocated abstinence to her children. Now, we see that that message didn't take and that perhaps teaching Abstinence-only is not the best way to prevent our children from unwanted pregnancies and disease.

It would be interesting to see if her attitude about this type of sex education will change. It probably won't, however. (I heard one talking head say that her daughter's pregnancy shores up even more the need for Abstinence-only. What?!?) It is disturbing to me when people are so absolute in their judgments. As if everything is either black or white without any shades of gray. I believe in abstinence. I'm not one of those people who say that young people (or grown people for that matter) can't be abstinent; I've seen a commitment to abstinence work in several people. But I also know that everyone is not going to make that commitment or once made, not going to uphold it. That doesn't make them moral-less heathens worthy of any disease that finds its way into their bodies. Abstinence education should be taught and taught fully, but contraception and reproductive health should also be taught. Social conservatives too often fail to temper their judgment with mercy. Unless it is one of their own.

Which brings me back to spin. When J'la-quesha in Southwest Atlanta gets pregnant at 17, she is demonized, posited as a poor example of judgment and morals, and somehow deserving of the hardships that she will encounter. But here we have Bristol in Anchorage, Alaska, 17, pregnant and her situation is painted as a warm moment--an admittedly difficult situation, but one that the family can find some pride in and that allows the family to demonstrate some strong family values. This application of a double standard is not what Jesus would do.

The spin is enough to land you on your head. And it's not over. You know I am going to be watching The View tomorrow to hear Elisabeth regurgitate what she heard over the weekend. But she won't be the only one and this Babygate won't be the only thing spun. It's just enough to make a body tired.