Obama and Chavez: "Hombres del Fuego"

I knew Fox News was bad and wasn’t even really an actual journalistic television station, but this? Damn!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
This Week in Demagogues – Ahmadinejad & Chavez
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic Crisis Political Humor
Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., In the news, Latin America, Media criticism, Popular (and unpopular) culture, The Obama Administration | 5 Comments

Debtors' prisons making a comeback

Bean pointed out this story to me, from Eric Ruder in The Intelligence Daily:

In 2006, the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) filed a suit on behalf of Ora Lee Hurley, who couldn’t get out of prison until she had enough money to pay a $705 fine. But she couldn’t pay the fine because she had to pay the Georgia Department of Corrections $600 a month for room and board, and spend $76 a month on public transportation, laundry and food.

She was released five days a week to work at the K&K Soul Food restaurant, where she earned $6.50 an hour, which netted her about $700 a month after taxes. Hurley was trapped in prison for eight months beyond her initial 120-day sentence until the Southern Center intervened. Over the course of her incarceration, she earned about $7,000, but she never had enough at one time to pay off her $705 fine.

“This is a situation where if this woman was able to write a check for the amount of the fine, she would be out of there,” Sarah Geraghty, a SCHR lawyer, told the Atlanta Journal Constitution while Hurley was still imprisoned. “And because she can’t, she’s still in custody. It’s as simple as that.”

Georgia also lets for-profit probation companies prey on people too poor to pay their traffic violations and court fees. According to a 2008 SCHR report entitled “Profiting from the poor”:

In courts around Georgia, people who are charged with misdemeanors and cannot pay their fines that day in court are placed on probation under the supervision of private, for-profit companies until they pay off their fines. On probation, they must pay these companies substantial monthly “supervision fees” that may double or triple the amount that a person of means would pay for the same offense.

For example, a person of means may pay $200 for a traffic ticket on the day of court and be done with it, while a person too poor to pay that day is placed on probation and ends up paying $500 or more for the same offense.

Posted in Class, poverty, labor, & related issues, Prisons and Justice and Police | 12 Comments

Mandolin's short story "A Monkey Will Never Be Rid of Its Black Hands" honored by storySouth

Congratulations to Rachel Swirsky, aka Mandolin!

Her story “A Monkey Will Never Be Rid of Its Black Hands,” published online by Subterranean Press, has been judged one of “the best online short stories published during 2008” by storySouth.

Mandolin has said it’s one of her favorites of her stories. Check it out.

Posted in About the Bloggers, Mandolin's fiction & poems | 4 Comments

Everyone’s a little bit racist. But some are more so than others.

A few years ago I went to see “Avenue Q” on Broadway, mostly because I’d heard its funniest song used in a World of Warcraft machinima vid and thought any play that makes a song out of internet porn was a must-see.

(…Yes, I’m a geek. If you didn’t know, now you know.)

There was another song in the play, called “Everyone’s a little bit racist”. This one wasn’t funny — not to me, anyway, though lots of people in the audience laughed. A sample of the lyrics:

Everyone’s a little bit racist
It’s true.
But everyone is just about
As racist as you!
If we all could just admit
That we are racist a little bit,
And everyone stopped being
So PC
Maybe we could live in –
Harmony!


The core flaw of the song lies in its unquestioned flattening of the power structure of racism. It equates racist jokes with acts of historical discrimination; the attitudes of an oppressed group with the attitudes of its oppressors; and doesn’t address the continuing systemic aspects of racism at all. Racism, this song suggests, is just about people’s ordinary dislike for others who are different from them, and if we’d all just relax and let it all hang out, we’d get over it.

So yeah. ‘Bout as funny as a fart in a crowded room, or so it seemed to me. Needless to say, I was silent and uncomfortable during that song, while the theater full of white people laughed around me and had a grand old time.

I cite this admittedly old incident because I keep seeing the chorus of that song in the apparently-spontaneous mass-spewage of racist stupidity across multiple media formats that’s taken place over the past few months, and the debates that have resulted therefrom.

It’s probably not a new iteration; it’s probably just that I’m only now noticing this particular response pattern. But you can see several examples of it in this, one of the later conversations in the “RaceFail 2009″ debate that occurred on science fiction author John Scalzi’s blog. This particular convo was hosted by our very own ABW in her Srius Authar guise, with some peanut-gallery chiming in by Yours Truly in her Srius Authar guise. It was all terribly serious. Now, you should really take this conversation in context, if you can, though RaceFail was massive; here’s yet another summary and two preceding conversations that may help you understand what was going on. My own interpretation: for the previous two months, the speculative fictional blogosphere had been afire with conversations about race which incorporated some healthy helpings of racist behavior by noted authors, editors, and so on. An ongoing complaint in this debate had been that if it was only nicer, politer, less angry, then maybe some real conversation could take place. …Yeah. I know. So, the Scalzi conversations were an effort to generate this nice polite discussion. You’ll notice that in all three examples, the PoC in the conversation gradually just stopped talking.

Anyway, the thing that I kept seeing in these discussions was a refusal on the part of some white-identified folks to accept the “authority” that people of color have in discussions of racism. (Using scare quotes because I’m not sure authority is the right word. The earned wisdom of experience. Moral superiority, maybe. Agency? I dunno. I’ll go with authority for now.) PoC aren’t always right about what is racist, goes the refrain; sometimes they’re too angry to be reasonable, or too emotional to see the big picture, or too personally-involved to have the necessary detachment when they’re evaluating a situation. (Not like those always-rational white folks.) Some of them have hidden agendas which require them to make a racist mountain out of an innocuous molehill because their finances or their egos or whatever depend on holding a position of moral superiority. Or sometimes the problem is White Guilt, which leads white people to anxiously accept everything a brown person says as truth. We should all just talk as equals, these authority-resisters insist, rather than having PoC lecture whites about right and wrong in the case of race. Because after all, Everyone’s A Little Bit Racist ™.

There’s some truth in this. (No, really.) We’ve all seen the Al Sharptons of the world profit from others’ misfortune, and we’ve all seen white people who go overboard, seeking expiation of their sins rather than dialogue. The problem with this denial of PoC authority in matters of racism, however, is that like the Avenue Q song, it flattens the power structure of racism, again suggesting that everyone’s experiences are equal and therefore we all have important things to bring to the conversation.

This just isn’t true. Everyone’s experience of racism is not equal. And too often white people bring defensiveness, fetishization, exotification, implicit associations, and their own hidden agendas to the conversation, which just fraks things up on both sides. To be fair, some PoC bring these things to the table too; unfortunately we’ve all been hit with the racism stick. But one of the commonalities of the PoC experience in colonized/white-dominant countries is that eventually, most of us look around and notice the system, because its negative effects become impossible to deny. And in noticing the system, we do assume some moral authority. The system discourages acknowledgment, after all. It works best if it remains semi-visible, “silent but deadly”; even to notice it is a challenging act. The white experience has the opposite commonality — denial of the system’s existence, and of its beneficial effect on their lives. So even when whites begin to acknowledge the system, the habit of denial is hard to break. Denial of PoC authority is just another manifestation of it.

So the next time you encounter someone who cites the Avenue Q chorus in a discussion of racism, I suggest the following refrain:

Everyone’s a little bit racist
It’s true
But some are still more so than others
Like you!*

(Yeah, OK, I’m not a musician, shuddup.)

Posted in Race, racism and related issues, Syndicated feeds | 16 Comments

Handshake…of Doom!

You know, maybe it’s just me being a fuzzy-headed liburul, but I simply don’t understand the right-wing freakout over Barack Obama (gasp!)shaking Hugo Chávez’s hand! (Dun dun DUNNNNNNNN).

Don’t get me wrong — Hugo Chávez is a Fidel Castro wannabe, and he’s rapidly moving from barely-democratic leader to authoritarian despot. Of course, that doesn’t distinguish him much from, say, Vladimir Putin. ((Not that Vladimir Putin is pulling the strings in Russia now. I mean, clearly Dmitri Medvedev is his own man. Also, I hear Siberia is balmy in mid-January.)) And it makes him quite superior to our frienemies in China, not to mention everyone’s buddies in Saudi Arabia. (Indeed, while Chávez is autocratic and anti-liberty, I haven’t heard that Venezuela is engaged in torture; in that respect, at least, he’s a more ethical leader than George W. Bush.)

But…so what? Was Obama supposed to greet him with a roundhouse kick to the head? Should he have reached out his hand, but ostentatiously pulled it back and run it through his hair? Should he have given Chávez the stinkpalm?

Well, sure, he could have done that. If he was a bully.

America is far more powerful than any other country on Earth, and arguably more powerful than every other country on Earth combined. And we could leverage that power in each and every meeting with each and every leader we run into. We could try to manipulate the world like an eighth grade classroom, with us at the apex, our friends forming a ring around us, and the outcasts beaten and bloodied. That was the Bush fils approach to foreign policy, and it might make you feel better, just as a bully feels better when he’s on top.

But glory for a bully is transitory; eventually, the rest of the class moves on from eighth grade, into a more adult world. And the bully can either grow up, and deal with others like an adult does, or he can flail about as others work together and leave him behind.

Barack Obama dealt with Hugo Chávez like an adult. He shook his hand, was polite, listened respectfully despite disagreements, and generally behaved like we expect people older than 22 to behave. We expect customer service workers to greet angry customers politely; why would we expect less out of the leader of the free world?

Will Obama’s adult approach empower Chávez? I doubt it sincerely. And frankly, so what if it does? America has nothing to fear from Venezuela. Besides, the bully approach hasn’t worked so far — Chávez has built his power base in no small part because he was able to rally domestic constituencies against the evil of the United States. If the U.S. is a bit less overtly evil, it undermines Chávez’s raison d’être.

Ultimately, America only needs to shun other nations if it fears engaging them. But there’s not a country on the planet we really need to fear right now. A confident America doesn’t treat other nations like dirt; it treats them like equals. That doesn’t mean capitulating to their every whim — but it does mean that when another leader reaches out his or her hand, you take it.

Posted in The Obama Administration | 6 Comments

Jews get diseases because we're smarter than you! It's a Chosen People thing.

My (non-Jewish) father told me about this story over the weekend. I wasn’t surprised to see PZ critiquing it.

Here’s the argument, as quoted by PZ:

Gregory Cochran has always been drawn to puzzles. This one had been gnawing at him for several years: Why are European Jews prone to so many deadly genetic diseases?

Tay-Sachs disease. Canavan disease. More than a dozen more.

It offended Cochran’s sense of logic. Natural selection, the self-taught genetics buff knew, should flush dangerous DNA from the gene pool. Perhaps the mutations causing these diseases had some other, beneficial purpose. But what?

At 3:17 one morning, after a long night searching a database of scientific journals from his disheveled home office in Albuquerque, Cochran fired off an e-mail to his collaborator Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

“I’ve figured it out, I think,” Cochran typed. “Pardon my crazed excitement.”

The “faulty” genes, Cochran concluded, make Jews smarter.

I had basically the same reaction to my father’s summary of the article that PZ did, though of course PZ probably said it better than I did off the cuff in the car:

My first answer would be to consider that they are a sub-group isolated by a history of bigotry from the outside, and strong cultural mores from the inside that promote inbreeding. These are variations amplified by chance and history…

Mr Cochran’s flaw is in his premise. There is no reason to assume that the frequency of every allele in a population must be the product of a selective advantage.

Ashkenazic Jews may simply be susceptible to many genetic diseases because those diseases didn’t sufficiently interfere with our breeding that they were erased. They don’t have to have given us a benefit. That’s not how evolution works.

My other question about the article revolves around the idea of “smarter.” There are certainly a lot of cultural ideas floating around that Ashkenazic Jews are somehow smarter than people of ethnicities — and these are old enough that when Goddard tried to push his flawed IQ tests as proof that Aryans were smarter than other peoples, he specifically mentioned what he felt were myths of Jewish intelligence.

But what is this coming from? Do we really have data to prove it? Remembering, of course, that minor fluctuations in IQ tests are easily explicable because of the ways in which upbringing informs interaction with standardized tests, I’m unwilling to take the 7 point difference they find between Ashkenazic Jews and other ethnicities too seriously. However, if — if — Ashkenazic Jews are performing meaningfully higher than average on IQ tests (in a way that suggests they actually have a higher narrow-and-problematic-thing-that-IQ-measures rather than just a better facility with standardized tests), have we ever done anything to try to confound environmental factors? Why does it have to be genetic?

When I first went to college, I attended a school with something like a 40% Jewish student body. I hadn’t been around so many Jews before. Many of my childhood friends were Jewish, and of course I’m ethnically Jewish, but I hadn’t had the experience of being in social groups that were predominantly Jewish.

I remember commenting to a friend of mine who had attended a Jewish private school in Chicago that my experience was that Jews were smarter. The Jewish friends I’d had in high school, I said, were all intelligent and academically capable. Therefore, I concluded, Jews were smarter than average.

My friend lowered a skeptical gaze at me, and said, “Believe me. Jews are just as dumb as everyone else.”

Posted in Whatever | 18 Comments

Open thread from 9 to 5

Post what you want, as long as you want, with whomever you want. Self-linking is encouraged.

I agree with the politics of this song, but really I’m just posting it here because I find the inclusion of the Disney characters endearingly bizarre.

Posted in Whatever | 26 Comments

Help out a small press: good reading for sale at Electric Velocipede

John Klima, the editor of Electric Velocipede, is having a little financial trouble.

Consequently, he’s redoubling energies toward selling some of the back issues of Electric Velocipede, as well as some of the chapbooks that he’s printed through his small press.

People who enjoy my work can find the original printing of my story “How the World Became Quiet: A Post-Human Creation Myth” (later printed at Escape Pod and in Best American Fantasy 2) in Electric Velocipede #13 for $5.

Though I haven’t read it yet, I just ordered and am looking forward to “An Alternate History of the 21st Century”, a chapbook of stories by William Shunn, whose story “Colin and Ishmael in the Dark” we featured on PodCastle this Halloween.

Other available magazines feature work by authors like Cory Doctorow, Karen Joy Fowler, Jeffrey Ford, and Hal Duncan.

Electric Velocipede has a reputation for publishing the quirkiest available in science fiction, fantasy, and other fiction of the weird. John Klima likes to publish the weird and wonderful, stuff that you won’t find anywhere else.

John Klima has a strong, unique editing voice. Check out his catalog and see if anything strikes your fancy.

Posted in Whatever | Comments Off on Help out a small press: good reading for sale at Electric Velocipede

Debate

So, I’m talking to Ampersand, and he says that he’s chatting on a mailing list, having a frustrating conversation about some political hot topic, and I respond,

“Bleagh. You really like debate, don’t you?”

Well, of course he does.

Me, though? I hate it. I would MUCH rather read the positions of people I disagree with, or listen to them talk without having to respond. (And then if I had to respond, do it all in one chunk, and then meander off.) The back-and-forth “No I’M right” “No I AM”… ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh.

I associate debate with power games, attempts at manipulation, and a confrontational mindset. Is this gendered? Well, maybe — I’ve noticed that 90% of the people who have attempted to wrangle me into debates and refused to let me stop talking about the subject even after I’ve expressed my clear desire to stop… are men. Often men who are around my age, who say they’re delighted to find someone articulate! political! and informed! The mere fact that I’m capable of debating means I must want to listen to their theories on Ayn Rand or… whatever. And then rebut them! Rather than ignoring the argument I’ve heard 100 times and talking about cute graphics on Animal Crossing, which isn’t any less productive, certainly, and doesn’t make my heart pound or make me think the other person is a jackass.

And especially in verbal debates, where there’s no recourse to the internet… oh, ugh. “Semi-colons are used just like colons!” says College Guy I barely know, who has asked me to proofread his essay because I’m a professional writer, and is now repaying the favor by arguing stridently against my critiques. “Um, no, semi-colons are properly used in two ways…” But College Guy Must Be Right.

But the dynamic can’t totally be gendered. Mike and I are at Thanksgiving this year, and my aunt is talking about how lazy poor people are. Mike is melting into a pile of goo, because these arguments hit home for a guy who grew up eating from the dented can store. “Please, can we change the subject?” I ask. “We’re really uncomfortable. You’re really hurting our feelings. Maybe this isn’t the best time or topic.” But no — we just don’t understand because we don’t have EXPERIENCE of the world, there is no such thing as a hard-working poor person who can’t make ends meet.

And besides, it’s not that Amp is somehow socialized to be more comfortable with debate than I am. His interest in debate, and my disinterest, cannot be explained by the differences in our sex.

There are a lot of kinds of political discussion I *am* interested in. Conversation, negotiation, mind-stretching, talking about things, and talking things out. But as soon as the confrontational comes in, the sense that it’s me AGAINST you, instead of me AND you trying to work out an idea? I’m gone. Strong disinterest.

Which is probably why I have no particular interest in chatting with people with whom I have irreconcilable views. There’s no way for me and a person who believes gay people are going to hell to work out an idea of how gay marriage should work as a cooperative exercise. We’re always going to be in opposition. How tedious. How fruitless. How obnoxious. I’d rather be talking to the radical queers who want to abolish marriage in the first place, to discuss whether there’s anything salvageable in the Western family structure (I’d probably say yes) — we disagree, but there’s a basic level of respect.

I tell Amp this, in shorthand, and he replies that in debates there’s often less politics of the interpersonal at stake than in other kinds of conversations. I can’t say I totally understand this, since my instinct is so strongly against competitive conversation, but maybe some of y’all do.

Again, I like being exposed to opposing points of view — at least within my Overton Window of acceptability — but I’d much rather be exposed in such a way that does not involve direct, personal confrontation and power games.

So, the conversation made me wonder how other people who read the blog might feel. How do you feel about debate versus collaborative argument?

I’m only opening this post to comments from people who accept the inherent dignity and worth of all people. I’m sure that the rest of y’all have interesting points on the subject, but… another time, another place. Hopefully, if I’m involved, in a collaborative way.

Posted in Whatever | 50 Comments

Teaching And The Need To Speak Out About Sexual Abuse

I was not planning to start posting again until I could begin in earnest the series I want to do on classical Iranian literature–and interruption after interruption after interruption has kept me from getting to the point where I am ready to do that–but something happened this week relating to a former students of mine that I need to write about. It is actually quite urgent, probably not to anyone who reads this blog, but certainly to the woman whose message is at the root of this post, and it makes a point that cannot be made strongly or frequently enough: We, especially but not only those of us who have survived sexual abuse of any kind and are strong enough to do so, need, need, need, need, need to speak up loudly and often about the realities of that abuse and how it has shaped our lives (because, whether we realize it or not, it shapes the lives even of those of us who have not been abused, either because we know someone who has or because it shapes the culture in which we live.) You may have seen this post in which I put up a YouTube video of an interview I gave to Jackson Heights Poetry Festival, an organization on whose advisory board I sit. In the interview, I talk about the relationship between my experience of child sexual abuse and the fact that I became a poet. The substance of what I said there is not important here. What is important is that watching this video moved a former student of mine to send me a message in which she told me–and the tone of the message suggests that I am the first person she has told–that she was sodomized a couple of years ago and had been trying to deal with it by pretending it didn’t happen. Even more importantly, though, and more urgently, she said that she suspects her three-year-old daughter is being sexually abused at the girl’s father’s house and that she [my former student] freaks out just thinking about the possibility. As I read the message, it sounded to me like she was saying this freaking out keeps her from acting on what she intuits, which is scary, because even if it turns out she is wrong–and there was no indication in the message that she has any vindictiveness towards the girl’s father that would lead her to make a false accusation (my point being that she might be wrong in good faith)–she needs to tell somebody, first to make sure that her daughter is safe and, second, to alleviate her own anxieties (and maybe understand, if she is wrong, what triggered her unfounded suspicions in the first place).

I responded in all the predictable ways–thanking her for her trust, acknowleding the courage it took for her to speak out, and encouraging her to get in touch with someone about her daughter’s sitation, though since I was running out the door, I couldn’t take the time to look up crisis hotlines or other phone numbers–and I am hoping to hear back from her, but what her message made me think about was, as I said above, just how important it is for us as a society to talk openly about the reality of sexual abuse. More, though, it made me think about how important it is to talk about that reality not just in contexts where sexual abuse is the topic–i.e., talk shows, conferences, seminars, etc. that are set aside for the specific purpose of addressing sexual abuse–but also, simply, merely, in the contexts of our daily lives, because abuse is always already part of our daily lives. Because you never know who is listening and how important your words might be to them.

I am remembering as I write this something that I have written about before, that I was not even thinking about when I started, but that is worth talking about here: An independent study I did five or seven years ago with two women who told me they wanted specifically to work on personal essays that dealt with the sexual abuse they had experienced when they were girls. They were both in a creative nonfiction class I was teaching and one had written an essay about her abuse that, while obviously cathartic for her, worked neither as a public document of personal testimony nor as art, and it was art she was trying to create. The problems in the essay were indicative of the difficulties abuse survivors have speaking out about their experience. Under normal classroom circumstances, I handle this by directing the student to some examples of writers who had dealt with similar topics; I might have a kind of “therapeutic” conversation (and I put that word in quotes because I do not mean that I would try to do therapy) to explore whether or not the student was really willing and able to delve into the topic at the depth and level of complexity it required. (I do, after all, have to assign a grade to the work my students hand me, and the last thing I would want is to give a low grade to an essay in which someone is struggling to come to terms with, or even just to name, the sexual abuse they’d survived because they were not yet able to write about the experience at the college level.) If the answer is no, then I offer the student the chance to write about something else; if the answer is yes, then I try to get them to articulate some of the difficulties they were having in writing the paper as a means of talking about how to deal with them in writerly terms; and I always encourage such students, if they are not in therapy, to seek counseling.

The woman in my creative nonfiction class, however, was not simply fulfilling an assignment I had given. She wanted to be a writer and she told me quite explicitly that she saw me as a role model, and so I was faced with the decision of whether to share with her my own experience of trying to write creatively, to make art, out of the fact that I had survived child sexual abuse. For reasons that are not so relevant here, I decided to do so. Then, when a second woman in the class also began to write about her experience of child sexual abuse, and she told me that she too wanted to be a writer, and she was a damned good writer, when the first woman approached me about doing an independent study, I suggested that the two of them might work together. The story of that independent study is really quite remarkable, but the part of it that is relevant here is this: At the end of the semester, all independent study students at my college are required to present their work at a colloquium; if they don’t, they don’t get credit. As the day of the colloquium drew near, my students grew increasingly nervous, for all of the predictable reasons, but one that stood out was their concern that the faculty and administrators present would think the subject of their work inappropriate for an academic context. So I told my students that I would introduce them by talking about my own experience of abuse and how meaningful it had been to me to be for them the kind of mentor/role model that just was not available to me in the 1980s when I started to talk about my own abuse. At that time, people were just starting to recognize the sexual abuse of girls. No one, as fas as I know, as talking in any substantive way–or at least was being given a forum to talk in any substantive way–about the fact that boys were being sexually abused as well.

And that’s what I did: I introduced those two women by naming myself as a survivor of sexual abuse and telling a little bit of my own story. It was a watershed moment in my life and in my career as a teacher. Not that I had any problem talking about my abuse, but I had always kept that part of my life separate from my professional life. It was “personal,” and so I had not really thought much about the degree to which it informed my practice as a teacher and a writer, my political stances in the world, etc. and so on. There is a great deal more to say about what it has meant to me to integrate these parts of myself, and I will, I hope write more about that. What I want to say here is simply that, if it were not for that independent study and the women who worked with me that semester, I would never have talked in that interview about the relationship between my abuse and my becoming a writer as easily as I did, and I would never have had the chance to encourage my former student to act on her feelings about her daughter’s situation, and my encouragement might turn out to be the thing that moves her to act, and we all know what kind of difference that could make in her daughter’s life (if she is being abused), and in my former student’s life as well.

Cross-posted on It’s All Connected.

Posted in Education, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 4 Comments