A Friendship Mourned

The discussion on Myca’s Nice Guy™ thread reminded me of someone I had not thought about in a very long time, a woman–I’ll call her Kim–with whom I was close friends in college, whom I lost as a friend after she decided to marry a man I was convinced was no good for her, not because I dropped her as a friend, but because she dropped me. We’d been classmates, but not more than that, in sixth grade and had not seen each other until we met again as English majors during our sophomore year in college. I have no memory of how we became close friends, but we did, quickly, and, eventually, I wanted very much to turn that friendship into something more.

I don’t remember if I ever told Kim how I felt. I do remember, however, very clearly when she told me how she felt about me. We were at a beach not far from campus and she had just come out of the water and plopped down on her stomach. We started talking, most probably about something we were reading for class, when suddenly Kim sat up and faced me. “You know, Richard,” she said, “you’re like a brother to me.” I don’t remember what, if anything, I said in response, though it was certainly not what I wanted to hear. Still, our friendship was far more important to me than the possibility of a sexual relationship which might end up not working out, so I swallowed my disappointment and accepted her, and loved her, as the intimate friend I assumed she was saying was the only thing she ever wanted to be to me.

Before Kim met the man she married, she had one boyfriend that I remember, a guy I thought was a jerk long before they became a couple, not so much because he was arrogant, though he was, but because he epitomized that arrogance, at least this is how I remember feeling about it back then, by braiding and beading his hair in imitation of Bo Derek’s hairstyle in the movie 10. The semester Kim went out with him, she also moved to a dorm across campus nearer to where he lived. In fact, she might have done that to be closer to him, but I am not sure. Once–and this is what confirmed him in my mind not just as a jerk but as a true asshole–he came back with her to her old dorm room to pick up some things. I walked by the open door on my way to leave a note on another friend’s door down the hall, saw them out of the corner of my eye as I passed and figured I would pop in to say hello on my way back. At first, I didn’t think they’d seen me, but then, when I was still just a couple of doors down from where they were, I heard him say, “See, I told you that once you moved across campus, he’d forget about you.” I put the note on my other friend’s door and hurried back, but by the time I got there, Kim and her boyfriend were gone.

I know she eventually broke up with that guy–it’s funny, I remember his name, first and last–and that she, too, decided he was a jerk; and I have memories of going to at least one classical music concert with her during our senior year (if I remember correctly, she played the violin) and of there being that night what I thought might have been some sexual tension between us, though nothing came of it. Indeed, I didn’t even realize it might have been sexual tension until the following day, and then it confused me because it was so at odds with the substance of our friendship; and I remember how ambitious she was as an aspiring journalist and how much I respected the integrity of her politics and her belief that she could make a real difference in the world. Mostly, though, I remember how much I liked being with her. Just being with her. She laughed a lot, and I don’t think there was anything we could not talk about. Her friendship enriched my life, plain and simple. It made me happy, and I was deeply grateful for that.

Then, in our senior year, a speaker came to campus, a man who’d written a tremendously popular book on “how to woo and win a woman.” The school newspaper assigned Kim to cover his talk, and when she did–at least this is my memory of the story she told me the next day–she asked him during the Q&A about something that, if true, would call into question the validity of his claim to be the kind of man who could write the kind of book he’d written and be taken seriously. His response, in front of the entire audience, was to invite her out to dinner that night with the rest of the press, where he promised he would answer her question. At the dinner, he offered to give her an exclusive, private interview back in his hotel room. She went with him. At some point, if I remember correctly what she told me, I guess it became clear to her that he was interested in giving her a good deal more than an interview and she asked him to take her home, or to call a taxi. He refused and she ended up having sex with him that night.

When she told me this, I was, for obvious reasons, horrified, and I told her so, and I pleaded with her not to see him again. Even if she did not think that what he did was date rape, I said–because she didn’t–a man who behaved like that was not someone she ought to trust; but she did not listen to me, and she started going out with him. This inevitably meant that she and I saw less of each other, though we still talked on the phone pretty frequently, and then, after what seems in my recollection to have been a very short while, and I mean a very short while, she told me he’d proposed marriage and that she was thinking of accepting. I asked her if she loved him, and while she did not say no, she very pointedly did not say yes. I don’t know how much time passed before she agreed to be his wife, but she did finally do so, and that was the end of our friendship. I remember trying to call her, to write her, but she did not respond at all. I was not surprised not to be invited to the wedding. Several years after we graduated, I was talking with someone who had also been her friend when we were in college, and he said that she’d told him she wanted to cut out of her life completely anyone she’d known during her college years. She didn’t, or wouldn’t, tell him why.

I googled Kim’s name today and was surprised to discover, given her one-time desire to be a writer, that she has almost no online presence. There are a couple of references to her and her husband, recent enough that I assume they are still married, and a couple of scanned articles she wrote for our college newspaper back when we were undergraduates. I read them wistfully, remembering the strength of her voice and of her character. I hope–despite everything that what I have written here implies about the man she married, because I would wish her nothing less–that her marriage has been a good one, happy and challenging in all the right ways, and most of all loving; and I hope that she has found ways of making her life as meaningful as she once thought being a journalist would make it; mostly, though, I wish there was a way I could find out if those hopes are true, because I never had the chance to say goodbye to her, to grieve the loss of her as a friend, and I guess I would also like the opportunity to tell her that a part of me still misses her.

I am not interested in reopening the debate from Myca’s thread about the definition of Nice Guy™ and any comments which do so will be deleted.

Cross posted on It’s All Connected.

Posted in Rape, intimate violence, & related issues, Whatever | 15 Comments

Dear British Politicians: Shut The Hell Up

dear-british-politicians-shut-the-hell-up

I don’t feel like putting on my diplomatic hat for this one. Unfiltered language ahoy.

It’s come to my attention that British pols are upset that our president is saying nasty things about BP. In case you weren’t aware, BP stands for British Petroleum, and it’s one of the country’s biggest companies. Apparently a lot of retirement money and other nest eggs rest in BP stock. And if Obama keeps being SO MEEN about the oil giant it will ruin the company and a bunch of people will lose money.

While I wouldn’t want to bankrupt old people, especially in a financial climate such as this, the bottom line for me is: I don’t fucking care.

BP Broke The Ocean. Broke it. Dead Mayans are pointing fingers at us from the afterlife and saying “we told you so, assholes.”

The company deserves to go down in flames, especially since that’s a likely scenario for the ocean. The executives deserve to drown choking on oil and gas since that’s what’s happening right now to marine life. And politicians who find that kind of rhetoric distasteful can suck it.

It is no way xenophobic to rail against BP, mayor of London, so you can just put a button on your lip right now. This is not an anti-British crusade. I don’t think anyone particularly cares that the company responsible for the destruction of the Gulf has its headquarters in your country. (Though I find this What If It Was Citgo scenario pretty plausible.) Just because you’re friendly with Israel you are not allowed to borrow their rhetoric for your goddamn foolishness1.

If so many people are worried that their retirement funds are in danger of depletion as BP’s stock goes down the toilet, may I suggest something? SELL. This has been going on for almost two months, now. You’ve had plenty of warning. You should have sold that stock weeks ago.

And can I also point out that nothing is guaranteed with stock. Just ask ex-Enron employees. Diversify or hush up. And if someone besides you is making the decision to keep BP stock, then it’s their fault if your money goes away, not our president.

Of all the stupid shit I have heard come out of people’s mouths about this oil spill — including how “irresponsible” it was for the media to characterize this as potentially bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster2 (and, oh look, IT IS) -– this is perhaps the stupidest. Putting financial considerations above protecting not just the Earth but people’s lives is what got us into this, remember? So why don’t you British pols just all sit down and shut up. You are not helping.

Jesus people, this is what happens when you let the Tories back in power.

Dear British Politicians: Shut The Hell Up — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Footnotes

  1. I’m referring to the practice of labeling any criticism of Israel as antisemitism, which not everyone does, but the comments from London’s Mayor totally reminded me of the meme.
  2. I heard this weeks ago during On The Media and at the time thought that it was irresponsible to not characterize it thusly. And now I’ve been proven right. I feel good about that. No, really.

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 30 Comments

The Glee Kids Could Owe A Million Dollars In Copyright Liability

On Balkinization, Christina Mulligan points out that the characters in “Glee” violate copyright law left and right:

The absence of any mention of copyright law in Glee illustrates a painful tension in American culture. While copyright holders assert that copyright violators are “stealing” their “property,” people everywhere are remixing and recreating artistic works for the very same reasons the Glee kids do — to learn about themselves, to become better musicians, to build relationships with friends, and to pay homage to the artists who came before them. Glee’s protagonists — and the writers who created them — see so little wrong with this behavior that the word ‘copyright’ is never even uttered.

You might be tempted to assume that this tension isn’t a big deal because copyright holders won’t go after creative kids or amateurs. But they do: In the 1990s, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) asked members of the American Camping Association, including Girl Scout troops,to pay royalties for singing copyrighted songs at camp. In 2004, the Beatles’ copyright holders tried to prevent the release of The Grey Album – a mash-up of Jay-Z’s Black Album and the Beatles’ White Album — and only gave up after massive civil disobedience resulted in the album’s widespread distribution. Copyright holders even routinely demand that YouTube remove videos of kids dancing to popular music. While few copyright cases go to trial, copyright holders like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) don’t hesitate to seek stratospheric damage awards when they do, as in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset filesharing case.

I’m too lazy to reproduce all the links in the above-quoted paragraph, so go to the original post to see the links. And also to, y’know, read the entire post. :-)

Current law favors copyright holders. But morally, there’s nothing wrong with singing your heart out. Remixing isn’t stealing, and copyright isn’t property. Copyright is a privilege — actually six specific privileges — granted by the government. Back in 1834, the Supreme Court decided in Wheaton v. Peters that copyrights weren’t “property” in the traditional sense of the word, but rather entitlements the government chose to create for instrumental reasons. The scope and nature of copyright protection are policy choices — choices that have grown to favor the interests of established, rent-seeking businesses instead of the public in general.

The Constitution allows Congress to pass copyright laws to “promote the progress of science” — a word often used in the 18th century to mean “knowledge”. The stated purpose of the original 1790 copyright statute was to encourage learning. So you tell me — what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?

Posted in Free speech, censorship, copyright law, etc. | 13 Comments

I Can No Longer Sit Back and Allow Communist Infiltration, Communist Indoctrination, Communist Subversion and the International Communist Conspiracy to Sap and Impurify All of Our Precious Bodily Fluids

Boy, the GOP seems to have picked a real winner in Nevada:

At first, [Nevada State Sen. Sharon] Angle appeared to be a conservative beamed to us straight from 1932. She’s come out against the repeal of Prohibition (which she later retracted). She’s against Social Security and Medicare. If you pressed her, you’d probably get her to grouse that things have gone downhill since the 19th Amendment, or that movies lost their spark once they introduced sound.

But sadly, my theory that Angle simply came to us after accidentally stepping in to a time machine in 1932 has been disproved. It turns out that Angle also staunchly opposed fluoridation, because she’s at least strongly influenced by the Bircher conspiracy theory about how fluoridation is a communist experiment in mind control. This conspiracy theory dates back to the ’50s and ’60s, when the government mandated fluoridation. It appears that Angle is less a time traveler and more a grab-bag of a century’s worth of right-wing conspiracy theories and screwy ideas.

Fluoride. That’s a conspiracy that hasn’t been around since the halcyon days of the sixties. People were opposed to fluoride in water because the gummit was putting chemicals into our bodies, and this would…uh…something.

This was obvious, because government is the enemy, damn it! Surely the government wasn’t interested in lowering the incidence of tooth decay — if they had been, then mission accomplished — but instead the evil forces of the government were focused on…well, it didn’t matter what, because it had to be nefarious.

Between Angle wanting to bring us back to the dental care of the 1930s, and Rand Paul happy to resegregate what few Walgreen’s lunch counters remain, the Tea Party folks are sure busy building a bridge to the 20th century. Which is why, for all the angst about our country’s direction, I expect the fall to be better for the Democrats than the dire predictions suggest. After all, it’s one thing to vote against Harry Reid. It’s quite another to vote for someone who thinks we should repeal Medicare.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics | 10 Comments

Why Does Egypt Support The Gaza Blockade?

One question I’ve seen come up again and again this week is, why has Egypt’s Mubarak regime been blockading Gaza — an extraordinarily unpopular move not only worldwide, but within Egypt? The best answer I’ve seen comes from Issandr Amrani, who blogs at The Arabist, in his excellent Foreign Policy article about Egypt’s collaboration with Israel on the Gaza blockade:

Firstly, the Egyptian regime has been concerned about the precedent that Hamas’ political electoral success in Palestinian elections in January 2006 set for the region, particularly after Egypt’s own Muslim Brotherhood secured an unprecedented 20 percent of parliament. It wants Hamas to fail. ((Note: Hamas, the government of Gaza, is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. –Amp)) […]

Secondly, Egypt’s ties with Israel and the United States have been prioritized over the Palestinian cause, even if this comes at a domestic cost. Between 2006 and 2009, the U.S. Congress aggressively pressured Egypt to do more to constrain weapons smuggling to Gaza, with military aid threatened for the first time. In 2009, U.S. and Israeli lobbying resulted in the construction of a metal wall at the border and the intensification of operations against tunnel smugglers. There has been a concurrent increase in support for the Mubarak regime in Washington, notably once the Obama administration came into office: not only have pressures on human rights and democratization vanished, but backlogged military purchases such as a multi-year $3.2 billion F-16 deal have been approved by Congress. While this is in part because of the new administration’s wish to distance itself from Bush administration policies, it is also due to its perception that Cairo is a crucial ally in its handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Of course, Egypt also has legitimate security concerns about Hamas’ control of Gaza. It is concerned about radicalization of the territory and believes that Gazan groups more radical than Hamas may have provided training for the terrorists who carried out three major attacks in Sinai between 2004 and 2006. (It is generally believed Hamas has imposed order in Gaza and checked smaller radical groups and criminal gangs.) The issue of weapons smuggling not only affects Israel’s security, but also Egypt’s, as stockpiles of explosives discovered in Sinai over the past year suggests. The dismantling of a network of Hizbullah network last year, recognized by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah to be involved in smuggling to Gaza, has also raised concerns that Egypt could be drawn into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even worse, officials fear a plan to “dump” the problem of Gaza on Egypt’s lap, something Israeli strategists have contemplated for decades. Already facing tense relations with the Bedouin population of Eastern Sinai, the regime has no desire to become responsible for Gaza, one of the most radicalized places on the planet.

But perhaps most importantly, it is the Mubarak regime’s own security that is threatened. During the Gaza war, Nasrallah made an unprecedented call for the Egyptian military, as well as citizens, to force the regime to open the border. Many officials I spoke to during the war felt that the “resistance front” of Iran, Syria, Qatar, Hizbullah and Hamas — as well as pro-Palestinian activists around the world and media outlets such al-Jazeera or al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper — was waging war on Egypt as much as Israel.

The Obama administration’s position is interesting; they are simultaneously pressuring Egypt to keep the blockade up and pressuring Israel to end the blockade. This makes sense politically — it would be very bad politics for the US and Egypt to end the blockade over Israel’s objections — but it’s also warped.

In reaction to the deaths of flotilla activists, Egypt has partly lifted the blockade on Gaza — at least for now. But the lifting of the blockade is incomplete, and Egypt has not made any commitment to lifting the ban permanently.

Posted in International issues, Palestine & Israel | 11 Comments

It's Really Not That Hard

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., is apparently worried about how parents will explain the world to children if the military doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals:

What do mommas and daddies say to a seven-year-old child about this issue? I don’t know. I think it would be a family issue that would concern me the most … What they might see in their discussions among the kids.

As the parent of a seven-year-old child, let me reassure the congressman. It isn’t that hard. Here’s how I explained it.

You see, when they grow up, most boys want to date girls, and most girls want to date boys. Like your mom and I did, or your grandparents. But sometimes, boys want to date boys, or girls want to date girls. There’s nothing wrong with that — it doesn’t happen as much, but it’s not a bad thing, it’s just different.

Now, some people do want to say it’s wrong, or it’s bad, because they want to say anything different is bad. But your mom and I don’t believe that, and you shouldn’t, either.

When you grow up, you’ll probably want to date boys. But you might want to date girls. Who knows, you might not want to date anyone. No matter who you fall in love with, we just want you to be happy and to be with someone who makes you happy. And we will love you no matter what.

You see, congressman? My daughter was able to understand that just fine. After our conversation, she saw a TV show with a gay couple, and identified that they were two boys who were married, and that they seemed nice. And that was the end of it — she didn’t seem overly concerned about it, because it’s not something one should be overly concerned about.

Of course, I started from the position that discrimination is bad. I suppose if you want to raise your children to believe that homosexuals are monsters, that may be a problem. But the problem isn’t that we want to extend equal rights to homosexuals. The problem is that you’re a flaming bigot. The rest of us — the tolerant majority — don’t have this problem. You should try it.

Posted in Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 26 Comments

Ads on the ABW

ads-on-the-abw

Part of my commitment to stop ignoring my poor blog and get on livening things up around here is a reassessment of some design aspects of the blog, including ads. Currently there are three places I’d marked for ads: the top left, lower down on the right, and the bottom of the RSS feed. The later two are Project Wonderful ads, the first one is from BlogHer.

For various reasons, I’ve decided to drop Project Wonderful. I think it’s a great idea, but for this blog we weren’t really making enough money from it to justify the space it took up. The BlogHer spot brings in more money. But since the code there is a little nanky, I don’t want to put two on every page. I’m taking ads off the feeds completely since they didn’t do much for anyone, anyway.

Instead of a Project Wonderful ad, I’m going to sell space on the right sidebar directly. Rates will be low, ad design will be subject to my approval, and at least some of the time I will offer the space for no charge to causes, non-profits, etc. My goal is to place ads that I think will interest readers, not annoy anyone, and won’t make you run for the hills instead of visiting the site.

Hopefully this arrangement will work out for everyone. But if you have any issues or questions or comments on the state of ads here, please let me know in comments.

Here’s the page that describes the advertising scheme in-depth.

And now a word from our sponsor…


Your ad could be here, right now.

Ads on the ABW

Posted in Syndicated feeds | Comments Off on Ads on the ABW

Some facts that people with an opinion on Israel need to have.

The context (via Feministe).

1. Jews have lived continuously in Palestine, in varying numbers, since before the destruction of the second temple. To say that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” implies that the actions of the Israeli government warrant the expulsion of Jews who have lived in what is now the state of Israel for generations, even centuries.

2. I can’t believe I even have to take the time to write this, but not all Jews who immigrated to Israel came from Germany and Poland – or even from Eastern Europe, or even from Europe at all. About half of Israel’s Jewish population is made up of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa. From the late 19th century to the mid-20th, between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Jews left or were expelled from Middle Eastern and North African countries, and most of them went to Israel.

3. This should be made apparent by item #2 and some knowledge of the Holocaust (including the Zionist movement’s part in strong-arming Holocaust survivors into immigrating to Israel), but not all Jewish immigration to Israel has been fully voluntary. Without even getting into the issue of Jewish descendants of immigrants, it’s pretty hilarious to suggest that a Jew who was forced to leave their country of origin should just pack up and go back.

What we need to talk about when we talk about Palestine is the ethnic cleansing that started with the first actions of political Zionists and Christian Restorationists and continues as I type this sentence. Sweeping, ignorant, and offensive proclamations that Jews should go back where they came from (an idea that, by the way, helped catalyze the Zionist movement in the first place) will not secure freedom for a single Palestinian.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, International issues, Jews and Judaism, Palestine & Israel | 44 Comments

Open Thread — Gone to California Edition

I’m off to California for a week, and definitely won’t have internet access for the next 24 hours or so. I don’t even have time to put a nice graphic at the top of this open post!

But please do post whatever links or thoughts you want here; self-linking, as always, is delightful.

See y’all later, and be nice!

Posted in Link farms | 18 Comments

When You Gaze Into the Abyss

Like most people, I’m horrified by the ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. I hate BP for their half-hearted response to the crisis. I think the Obama administration has limited options for what they can do to stop the crisis (nuking the hole, while cathartic, would almost certainly make matters worse), but they have been too willing to defer to BP so far. To some extent, they have to — the oil companies have the technology to manage the well, while the federal government does not. But the government has not inflicted nearly the amount of pain on BP that they deserve, nor have they begun the process of preventing another disaster such as this from occurring in the future.

But while I’ve laughed along with everyone at the @BPGlobalPR Twitter feed, I’ve tried very hard not to forget the real villain in this story. The real culprit. The true bad guy. The person who is most at fault for the blowout of the well in the Gulf of Mexico, and even worse environmental disasters around the world.

That person is sitting at my keyboard, writing my post. He is me.

Oh, not just me. He’s also my friends. My family. Your friends. Your family. You. And everyone else in the developed world, a world that runs on energy, energy that is more often than not pulled from the ground, rock by rock, and siphoned from the ground, drop by drop.

We have had over thirty years since the OPEC oil embargo first woke America up to the critical role that oil plays in our national existence. Thirty years to find alternate ways to fuel our cars and trucks and boats. And in that time, we’ve developed ethanol, and…well, that’s about it. Oh, we’ve increased wind power a bit. Tightened up CAFE standards a touch (but not too much — Michigan’s a swing state, after all). But that’s peanuts. In 2007, petroleum provided 39 provided of America’s energy. Natural and coal tied for second, at 23 percent each. That’s 85 percent of all the energy consumed in America provided by three greenhouse-gas producers that are either mined or pumped, with the concurrent human costs. Another eight percent of our energy comes from nuclear power, which has its own environmental problems. Just seven percent of American energy is renewable, and a significant percentage of that is in corn-based ethanol, which is at best energy-neutral to produce.

In short, we have done nothing of significance for thirty-odd years while the crisis stared us right in the face. We knew that American oil supplies were in decline — and we did nothing to reduce our demand. We did nothing to develop alternative energy sources. We did nothing but drill, baby, drill and buy, baby, buy — the source didn’t matter. We took most of the easy oil from the ground, and so we’ve moved to the continental shelf, drilling a mile deep, to a well we literally can’t get at, because we have no choice.

And don’t tell me you’re different. You’re better. You’re environmentally aware. Since you’re almost certainly not Amish, living on the land and making your own clothes, you’ve been to a grocery store. You’ve bought fruit from Brazil in the winter. You’ve bought clothes stitched in Indonesia. You buy things from Amazon and Ebay, that are shipped by truck or by airplane, delivered directly to your house. Hell, you’re on a computer, which, like mine, is probably powered mostly by coal.

We cannot be angry at BP without being angry at ourselves. We cannot be disgusted with the oil spill without being disgusted at our unwillingness to push for alternative forms of energy. We power our cars and our homes with the blood of the men who died on the Deepwater Horizon, with the blood of the men who have died in mining accidents and refinery accidents. Not to mention with the money robbed from men and women who made their living off the Gulf Coast. And the men and women in the Niger River delta, and the men and women in northeastern Alberta.

Oh, there are things we can do to lessen the damage. We can force oil companies to dig relief wells right from the start of investigatory drilling, shore up our enforcement of environmental regulations. But it’s just a stopgap. Unless we lessen our dependence on oil, we’ll keep drilling the deep water, and eventually, ANWR. We don’t have a choice. We can’t replace 39 percent of our energy overnight. And we haven’t done anything to plan for the day we can.

And that is the problem. For all our righteous anger at BP, they’re just the pushers. We’re the junkies. And until we find a way to get clean, BP’s going to do what they’ve been doing. After all, they’re just working at our behest. No, we have to do far more than we have to end our dependence on fossil fuels. And until we do, disasters of this magnitude are inevitable. It’s nobody’s fault but our own.

Posted in Environmental issues | 32 Comments