A truly amusing article at the Onion

My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it’s been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.s

The only quibble I have is that it isn’t three minutes of incoherent shouting that drives off the reasonable. It’s years worth.

Posted in Whatever | 2 Comments

Asian American Bone Marrow Donors Needed

An important announcement, taken from the livejournal of my friend E. C. Myers:

28-year-old Nick Glasgow was just diagnosed with leukemia and has only weeks-to-months to live. He desperately needs a bone marrow donor but he’s a quarter-Japanese, which is a difficult racial mix for finding matching donors. I know several people with interesting mixed-Asian heritage and I hope one of us might be able to help–if not Nick then someone else. You can read about Nick’s situation and the difficulty involved with finding donors of mixed ethnicities, then if you can help I hope you will request a testing kit from the Asian American Donor Program. Kits are free for Asian-Americans and easy to use. Time is of the essence!

Posted in Whatever | 4 Comments

Three Things Taught Me Conservative Love: Jesus, Ronald Reagan, Plus Atlas Shrugged

This is easily the best conservative anthem since “Bush Was Right.”

(Via Josh)

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Whatever | Comments Off on Three Things Taught Me Conservative Love: Jesus, Ronald Reagan, Plus Atlas Shrugged

Oh, that wacky GOP racism

As a follow-up to Jeff Fecke’s excellent post on the creepily racist GOP response to Judge Maria Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, I wanted to point out Matt Yglesias’ post on Tom Tancredo equating La Raza with the KKK.

TANCREDO: If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case, which is, from my point of view anyway, nothing more than a Latino — it’s a counterpart — a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses. If you belong to something like that in a way that’s going to convince me and a lot of other people that it’s got nothing to do with race. Even though the logo of La Raza is “All for the race. Nothing for the rest.” What does that tell you?

Okay, first, let’s look at the ridiculous phrasing of, “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.” Sure, I get that what he’s saying is that La Raza is racist, and we’ll get to that in a minute, but the cavalier way in which he dismisses the “hoods and nooses” is interesting to me. The hoods and nooses are pretty damn vital to the conception of the KKK, aren’t they? It’s as if he thinks that the fact that the KKK was fucking murdering people regularly had nothing to do with why folks have a problem with them. It’s like saying, “The Republican Party is just the American Nazis without the antisemitism, the fascism, the desire for genocide, the Roman salute, the annexation of Poland, the speaking German, …”

As for whether La Raza is racist, or is actually, “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses,” Matt helpfully points out that not only is La Raza a mainstream (Incredibly mainstream, actually. My high school had a student chapter) Latin@ organization ((And look, if there are people out there who really believe that La Raza is a racist hate group, I want to direct you to two great posts that came up the last time Republican were smearing Latin@ pride organizations, specifically, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA. They’re both from 2003. The first is Orcinus, here, which goes into some detail about the slogan “Por la Raza, todo. Fuera la Raza, nada.” The second is Ted Barlow @ Crooked Timber (Fun Fact: Ted Barlow used to play in a band, Greenhouse And The Tender Ju Ju Coins, with one of my college buddies.) talkign about some of the same sorts of things. Now both of these posts are about MEChA, but here’s the thing: MEChA is (as I understand it) more radical than La Raza. And it’s not a hate organization by a long shot. Calling either one the moral equivalent of the KKK demonstrates stunning contempt for Latin@ people everywhere.)) , Republican luminaries like John McCain and Mel Martinez have spoken to and received awards from the group, both with nary a peep.

It is unclear to me whether Tom Tancredo is saying that both John McCain (who delivered a keynote address to the group) and Mel Martinez were unfamiliar with the unsavory and racist associations of La Raza, or whether he was saying that it’s not out of character for Republicans to pal around with racist organizations. If it’s the first, that would be awfully surprising, and I guess we should expect to hear their denunciations of La Raza pretty quickly. If it’s the second … umm … points for honesty, I guess?

Please do not comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.

Posted in Whatever | 15 Comments

Reprinted from magistrate – On the obligation to educate the uninformed

Reprinted with permission from Magistrate. The following is by former student of mine who is a science fiction and fantasy writer, as well as a generally awesome person.

*

On the obligation to educate the uninformed

There’s something I see a lot in discussion of race, of gender, of any sort of marginalized group, really – someone who isn’t part of that group will come up to someone who is and say “Wow, I didn’t know. Could you tell me more?” And the person they’re asking will say “No.”

And then it usually explodes.

I want to write out exactly what I see as going on in that situation, to the extent that I know it, to tell people why they’re getting that “No.” – and this is a lesson I had to learn after looking at posts by people who refused, and thinking Well, that’s unreasonable, isn’t it?, and really sitting down to try to understand why that refusal was happening. Why someone who was a victim of ignorance would refuse to educate others.

Yes, it’s counter-intuitive. But it’s not unreasonable. Here’s, to the best of my current understanding, why:

Educating others is an arduous and often thankless job, especially when you’re educating someone who may be skeptical of your point of view, especially when it’s topic which affects you deeply, personally, and emotionally. If you ask someone to put in the time and energy to educate you, whether or not (but especially if) you’ve given any indication that you might not agree with what they’re trying to explain, whether or not (but especially if) it’s a topic which is significant and personal to them they are not obligated to educate you.

On an issue like race, or sexuality, or gender, reams and reams of information have already been written. A little digging, at a decent library or on the internet, will give you a wealth of information on the topic – usually written by those who do sincerely want to educate others. By preferring not to sit down and discuss issues, people are not denying others access to that information. They’re saying that they personally can’t, won’t, or don’t want to teach it.

No, oppressed and marginalized people are not morally obligated to educate their oppressors or the mainstream. In fact, the constant need to defend oneself or one’s lifestyles is a symptom of oppression and marginalization.

I personally don’t find it offensive when people ask me to educate them. I may not always have the time, energy, or inclination to do so, and I may scoff at the notion that I am capable of speaking or qualified to speak as though I represented my entire demographic, but I generally assume (unless they indicate hostility or skepticism) that they’re asking in good faith. This doesn’t mean that I will always step up to educate them – as said before, it takes a lot of time and energy, especially emotional energy. And while I’d try to turn away people I didn’t want to educate myself kindly, hopefully with a few edifying links or directions on where to turn, were I in an emotional state, I can’t guarantee how that would come out. It might come out in a very hostile way – and if it ever does, I apologize.

The hostility. Not the refusal to educate. Because while I think that basic civility is a right of people in dialogue, having someone personally educate you is not. It is a privilege – yes, I said the P-word – and should never be demanded of anyone.

But, I hear someone say, people need to be educated, and if the marginalized and oppressed don’t do it, who will? Excellent question.

The problem here is that people think the marginalized and oppressed can be tokenized down into the particular marginalized or oppressed person they happen to be talking to. People do educate on this. People write, people manage campaigns. People take social and civic action. Yes, people both from and outside of the marginalized and oppressed groups take it upon themselves to educate others and to work for equality and justice.

This doesn’t mean that they, or other members of their community, have to work on the schedule of anyone who asks, or for anyone who asks, or because anyone asked. In the same way that you can’t just grab an unemployed person off the streets and say “You, write a letter to your congressman about the economy – well, come on, hurry up; it’s your responsibility!”, in the same way you can’t tell a victim of police brutality or even racial profiling “You, here’s a pen and paper, write a letter to the editor of the local paper because the public has to know!”, you should be aware that people have their own lives to live and their own concerns and their own apprehensions and hangups about stepping into that role and are not obligated to perform any civic duty to fulfill your sense of moral propriety.

And even asking that question reveals another one: why should it rest on the backs of the marginalized and oppressed? Pragmatically, yes, it usually does, but if you’re asking the question, that indicates that you both come from a position of privilege and recognize that there’s a problem that needs solving. Kudos to you, and that’s a genuine kudos; you’re ahead of a lot of people. The next step is to educate yourself.

You can do it. It’s not even that difficult. It’s the information age.

Educating yourself is likely to give you a much more solid grounding in the state of things, anyway, unless the person you’re talking to is heavily involved in social action or has a degree in the subject you’re asking about. People are great for personal touches and idiosyncratic experiences, but if you’re coming in as someone who knows nothing and wants to learn, you might want more than personal touches and idiosyncratic experiences anyway.

I’d like to say here that I personally don’t think there’s anything inherently offensive about asking someone else for their opinions or for the basics, so long as you respect them and their right, if they choose so, not to tell you. I have to amend a caveat, though: in saying this I am very much not interested in being used as anyone’s marginalized friend in an argument such as “oh, well, draegonhawke says se doesn’t see anything offensive about it.” Do not tokenize me. My opinions are what I think, not what every person in my situation thinks or should be expected to think. If you ask someone and they’re offended by it, apologize and don’t ask any more. If they rip you apart for asking and apologizing, maybe that’s not someone you want to talk to about this subject. It happens.

Disclosure. I am a member of marginalized groups. I’m biracial, asexual, non-cisgendered. I am also a member of privileged groups. I’m college-educated, American, able-bodied. Most people are combinations of privileged and non-privileged – this discussion, as with most discussions of privilege, applies to people acting on both sides, and should be considered in this light.

Posted in Civility & norms of discourse, Whatever | 6 Comments

Racism Begets Racism

Riffing off a point by Matt Yglesias (who notes that the opposition to Sotomayor has been almost cartoonishly racist), Ta-Nehisi Coates says the GOP can’t help itself:

One problem with the GOP is that when you build your brand on Willie Horton, “white hands” and the Minutemen, you end up with a party that, well, believes in those things. People keep saying that the GOP is playing into Obama’s hands. I’ve said similar. But as I think about this, that takes chess-match thinking to a rather silly extreme.

More likely, when you have a party, in which people feel comfortable coming to rallies and saying on camera that they won’t vote for a black guy, then that party will have people asserting the right to mispronounce Sotomayor’s name. That party will have people arguing that Sotomayer’s food choices are evil.  It’s highly unlikely that that party will have some sort of sophisticated tolerence game at the ready. They are who they are.

That’s exactly right. The GOP is reaping the seeds sown when Nixon launched the Southern Strategy — the Republican Party has become the party of racism in America. I’m not saying all Republicans are racist — they aren’t. But most racists are Republican, for the simple reason that the Republican party has shown itself to be welcoming to the intolerant, the bigoted, and the hateful. That’s the reason that despite strong business support, and despite the clear long-term interest of the GOP in attracting Latino and Latina voters, and despite the strong support of both the the then-President and the party’s future presidential nominee, that immigration reform went nowhere. That’s the reason why opposition to Obama so often takes the where’s the birth certificate/scary black man/socialist!!1!!11! approach, when a sane approach would certainly work better.

Like the scorpion on the back of the frog, the GOP can’t help but sting anymore — it’s in its nature. Fortunately for America — and unfortunately for the GOP — the sting isn’t hurting the frog anymore. And unless the Republican Party can find a way to transcend the racism that is at the very core of its existence, the Republican Party alone is going to find itself drowning.

Posted in Race, racism and related issues, Supreme Court Issues | 38 Comments

\stü-pi’-di-tē\

I have a weird last name. Spelled, Fecke, it’s pronounced \fek’-ē\, with a long e at the end. ((Ironically, given the topic of this post, my name has been anglicized; in Germany it is spelled the same but pronounced \fek’-ə\, which itself is a corruption of the German name Feick.)) But given that it’s unusual, I’m not put off by any of the odd variants people will use when they first meet me, even if it’s my favorite weird one, \fēk\.

But while I’m very tolerant of mispronunciations of my name on first meetings, I don’t know what I would think if I corrected the pronunciation and was told, in all seriousness, “Well, \fek’-ē\ isn’t a standard English pronunciation in my book. I’m going to stick with \fek\.” I think I would probably back away slowly from the idiot, immediately convinced that this was a person I need not deal with ever again.

Enter Mark Kirkorian, who is a person we need not deal with ever again. He wondered yesterday whether Sonia Sotomayor’s last name wasn’t, well, too ethnic for us to pronounce correctly:

So, are we supposed to use the Spanish pronunciation, so-toe-my-OR, or the natural English pronunciation, SO-tuh-my-er, like Niedermeyer? The president pronounced it both ways, first in Spanish, then after several uses, lapsing into English. Though in the best “Pockiston” tradition, he also rolled his r’s in Puerto Rico.

Horrors! Barack Obama pronounced Sonia Sotomayor’s name correctly! What’s next, he goes to a Mexican restaurant and doesn’t order “Gwack-uh-mohl” on his “Fuhjeytuhs?” Why can’t he pronounce it like the good old English name Niedermeyer, which means “Name which is German?”

Not content with asking whether we shouldn’t mispronounce Sonia Sotomayor’s name deliberately, Kirkorian decided to take it to the next level:

Deferring to people’s own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent’s simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn’t be giving in to.

[…]

This may seem like carping, but it’s not. Part of our success in assimilation has been to leave whole areas of culture up to the individual, so that newcomers have whatever cuisine or religion or so on they want, limiting the demand for conformity to a smaller field than most other places would. But one of the areas where conformity is appropriate is how your new countrymen say your name, since that’s not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch. And there are basically two options — the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there’s a lot more of the latter going on than there should be.

Really? Because that’s the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard of. Unlike French, which is policed rigorously by grammarians, English (and especially American English) is a polyglot mixture of French and other Romance languages, Norse and other Germanic languages, Gaelic and other Celtic languages, and any other word that’s been hoovered into the language over its long history. Our sentence structure is ad hoc, our vocabulary voluminous. The language that we call English has assimilated words and structure from pretty much every language it’s come across over the years, and that’s the language’s great strength.

So Judge Sotomayor pronounces her name \sō-tō-mī-yor’\? So what? It’s unusual in English to stress the final syllable of a polysyllabic word, but it isn’t unheard of. There’s not a rule in English that wasn’t made to be broken. That’s one of the grand things about the language — that it simply adapts as new loan words and loan names are brought in. Oh, sure, there’s some Anglicization going on — I’m not going to attempt to roll the r on Sotomayor, because as a native American English speaker, I really can’t — but I can at least approximate the pronunciation, and get the stress on the right syllable. After all, it’s only neighborly to try to pronounce a name the way it’s pronounced. Real Americans are supposed to be neighborly — something Kirkorian evidently doesn’t understand.

(Via Steve Benen)

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Supreme Court Issues | 34 Comments

Kid blogging: Sydney drawing

Sydney just told me, “People think sharks are cool but they’re not. There’s only one person who doesn’t like sharks, and that’s me.”

Sydney draws exceptionally well for a five year old. You might think that I’m only saying that because I’m her honorary uncle. But her mother thinks her drawings are exceptional, too, so there.

(Another photo after the fold) Continue reading

Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 7 Comments

Judge Sotomayor's Speech on being a Latina on the Bench

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor gave the keynote speech at “a symposium commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal district court.” The text of the speech was later published in the La Raza Law Journal.

I’m posting the full speech (even though it may be a copyright violation) because I think it’s important, since Sotomayor’s views on being a Latina Judge will probably be much discussed over the next couple of weeks, that people have the opportunity to read her own words in full.

Here’s an excerpt; the full speech is after the jump.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

The full speech can be read under the fold. Continue reading

Posted in Race, racism and related issues, Supreme Court Issues | 49 Comments

It’s Sotomayor!

Obama has picked Sonia Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court nominee! …But already the bullshit begins:

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, an activist group. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

Riiiiiight. Like sex, race, and ethnicity doesn’t affect the decisions rendered by the white men who’ve dominated the court for all these years. Uh-huh. Yeah.

I’m too tired to really analyze this; just got back from Wiscon, where I got to meet several dozen ABW readers in person (hi, ya’ll!), and where the possibility of Sotomayor getting the nom was the subject of quite a few conversations. But I have to say, I’m bracing myself. Even though some are predicting smooth sailing in the confirmation process, I just don’t see conservatives letting this one slide, because she’s their worst nightmare. They’ve already tried to trash her by appealing to the worst intersectional stereotypes, painting her as domineering, a bully, and “not that smart”. In other words, an angry brown woman, wielding her inferior brown intellect like a girl-cootie-infested bludgeon. I predict this is only the beginning. The mouth-breather chorus has only begun to clear its throat, and I don’t want to see what it’s about to vomit up.

But for the time being, I’m just going to cheer.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff, Syndicated feeds | 40 Comments