ThinkProgress » Idaho Rejects Rape Exception In Abortion Bill Because ‘The Hand Of The Almighty’ Was At Work:
The disgusting number of women-hating pieces of legislation being pushed through various state legislatures is astounding.
But I think the Idaho bill is particularly galling: even if you were the victim of sexual assault or family sexual abuse you would be forced to keep the pregnancy.
It's a double assault against a woman's body and mind.
These fucking men seem to have a real problem with women having an independent will.
You know, like men have.
I had a conservative guy respond to one of my tweets today and he seemed to imply that simply having a reproductive system automatically obligated a woman to use it to reproduce. Whether or not she wanted to.
If we take all these bills together, women aren't going to be allowed to make decisions about anything on our own:
We can't buy contraception.
We can't terminate a pregnancy if we are raped.
We can't terminate a pregnancy if we aren't.
Our exes get to sue us if we get an abortion.
We can't say no to an ultrasound.
We can't rely on our own religious (or irreligious) counselors.
We have to wait for an abortion.
We can't get an abortion in our own state.
We can't use our money (or the State's money) to pay for abortion.
What can we do, in this world these women-hating men want to create?
Oh, get pregnant, get raped, and stay pregnant.
I want to smash some testicles.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
the wrong jesus
Dangerous Minds | Amen to that: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus:
Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor—especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached.And this:
And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus’s message—a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.I think that if the trajectory our country is on is ever going to change, and if there's a chance for the rampant craziness from the religious Right to be checked, those of us of faith will need to be more confrontational and call out these so-called Christians for their hypocrisy and greed. The liberals don't really understand church language or sentiment so it's really up to us.
Friday, March 25, 2011
protecting government from religion
Wonk Room » Pawlenty: U.S. Should Not Be Governed By Religious Law — Unless It’s Christianity:
"During a recent address to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, Pawlenty proclaimed, “The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith.” He added, “we need to be a country that turns toward God, not a country that turns away from God.”
Uh, no.
I mean, sure, folks should turn to God. (If that is their wont.)
But there is no way I want my government basing its laws on the Bible.
Government, by all means, should be protected from religion.
People (typically men) who get excited by the idea of turning the Bible into some freaky rubric for everyone to follow always choose the weird stuff:
no sex, stoning women, biology being destiny; the poor being with you 'always,' men being in charge of everything, no gays, daughters staying under the authority of their fathers, owning slaves; proselytizing/killing folks who don't give a shit what you think about their faith (or lack thereof), righteous war, exploiting the land and all that smiting nonsense.
They never pick the cool stuff:
mutual kindness; minding your own business; helping your neighbor; the Good Samaritan; shaking the dust off your feet; rich men getting into heaven like camels through the eyes of needles; the last shall be first and first, last; Peter being told to stop being such an asshole bigot.
If they did, they wouldn't be called Christians; they'd be ... Scandinavian or something. Socialists, in any case.
Religious blowhards with giant, rutting, pink hard-ons for patriarchy and control always choose the rules in the Bible more likely to be illegal, oppressive or otherwise problematic in a democratic, secular and pluralistic society.
Why is that?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
asshat of the day: the GOP
Take a close look at some key words from critical reductions proposed by the GOP-led House:
contraception
healthcare
family planning
nutrition for pregnant women/children
prenatal care
Headstart
childcare
education
college
job training
social security/elderly women
meals
housing
cancer
food
What do women with families care about?
We care about taking care of our kids; putting food on the table; getting all of us a good education; making sure all of us are healthy and have some slim chance for middle class stability.
The cuts the GOP have proposed gut all of that.
Their proposals are basically a knife to the heart of a woman's middle class dream. In their proposals we can predict an America full of communities and families without access to employment, healthcare or education, badly fed, untrained, at the mercy of biology and accident - a permanently under-educated and under-resourced underclass.
Thanks, GOP, for turning America into a Dickensian nightmare.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Funny how real life intrudes on what used to be soo important a few years ago. When I first started this blog I was filled with so much outrage, this was the only place I could let it out without breaking down. 9/11, and my mom's passing, made me feel impotent. This blog was something I could control - and something I could share. I'm happy that this space has been one where I can be smart (occasionally), funny (unintentionally) and downright bitchy and scabrous (hey! new word!).
More than a few years later (actually, eight), this blog has slowed down a little but that doesn't mean I'm giving it up. It's just that other things have been happening;but despite all the real-life stuff going on, I still have a finger on the pulse on what's happening in the outside world.
So here's all my political blogging smooshed together:
On the plan to defund Planned Parenthood and the GOP effort to balance the federal budget on a woman's uterus - no; if you were really serious about our deficit, you'd do something about defense and Medicaid.
On the Chicago mayoral race and candidates deliberately ignoring what a structural deficit is and playing word games with the electorate - you suck and you're dishonest.
On the revolution in Egypt - congrats, but democracy is harder than it looks.
On the abortion provider being targeted by anti-abortion activists in Wichita - i think it's time we all learned how to provide abortions; they can't put us all in jail. (That's my official Crazy Thought of the Day.)
On Illinois' frakked budget situation and the continued misunderstanding of what gov't is for: gov't is not our personal retail location where we are entitled to a product; it is an entity that delivers services that prevents us from living in caves like animals - services that need to be paid for. make the tax increase permanent, for god's sake, and stop fooling around.
Carry on.
More than a few years later (actually, eight), this blog has slowed down a little but that doesn't mean I'm giving it up. It's just that other things have been happening;but despite all the real-life stuff going on, I still have a finger on the pulse on what's happening in the outside world.
So here's all my political blogging smooshed together:
On the plan to defund Planned Parenthood and the GOP effort to balance the federal budget on a woman's uterus - no; if you were really serious about our deficit, you'd do something about defense and Medicaid.
On the Chicago mayoral race and candidates deliberately ignoring what a structural deficit is and playing word games with the electorate - you suck and you're dishonest.
On the revolution in Egypt - congrats, but democracy is harder than it looks.
On the abortion provider being targeted by anti-abortion activists in Wichita - i think it's time we all learned how to provide abortions; they can't put us all in jail. (That's my official Crazy Thought of the Day.)
On Illinois' frakked budget situation and the continued misunderstanding of what gov't is for: gov't is not our personal retail location where we are entitled to a product; it is an entity that delivers services that prevents us from living in caves like animals - services that need to be paid for. make the tax increase permanent, for god's sake, and stop fooling around.
Carry on.
Monday, January 31, 2011
If you're going to call about HR3: a script via Sady Doyle
With a crappy piece of legislation like this - where the hate and cruelty are almost too much to bear - it helps to have a script when you're calling. Luckily, Sady Doyle provides one:
Sady Doyle - Script for Calling the Democrats Who Support HR3
I think it's still a little too long (staffers appreciate brevity) so I would cut it a little shorter, after you ask for the staffer who handles healthcare or women's issues:
1. Mention the bill # right away so it's at the top of the message: Hi, I'm calling to leave a comment about HR 3.
2. Tell the staffer what you want the Rep to do (again, so it's at the top of the message): Please oppose HR3.
3. Then boil it down to your top 3 bullets so they can summarize it for the legislator or the main staffer on this issue:
5. Thank them and hang up.
Pass it on.
Sady Doyle - Script for Calling the Democrats Who Support HR3
I think it's still a little too long (staffers appreciate brevity) so I would cut it a little shorter, after you ask for the staffer who handles healthcare or women's issues:
1. Mention the bill # right away so it's at the top of the message: Hi, I'm calling to leave a comment about HR 3.
2. Tell the staffer what you want the Rep to do (again, so it's at the top of the message): Please oppose HR3.
3. Then boil it down to your top 3 bullets so they can summarize it for the legislator or the main staffer on this issue:
Going beyond Hyde, in an unprecedented way, HR 3 strips current rights from rape survivors, women and girls who need abortions.4. Then give your contact information and let them know you expect a response: I look forward to hearing from the Congressman on this matter.
HR 3 redefines rape to mean only sexual assault involving 'force' will be covered, contradicting existing statutes that already defines sexual assault. Sexual assault statistics and rape victim advocates show that 70% of rapes aren’t “forcible.”
HR3 also makes it much harder for women to purchase private insurance that may include abortion services, harder for companies to cover women who need abortions, and strengthens “conscience” clauses, which means doctors can refuse to provide critical reproductive medical care to women at any time. It is discriminatory.
5. Thank them and hang up.
Pass it on.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
oh, carol. you're losing me.
I think I'm even supposed to be one of her target demographic: woman of color, professional, educated, tired of old boy politics, pro choice, progressive, feminist-y, and modern. But I'm not digging Carol's style right now. Her campaign style is definitely not...modern. It's a mish mash of crankiness, recalcitrance, bull-headedness and iron-fisted charm. If her campaign was a CEO, I'd hate to work for her.
Am I supposed to be impressed she convinced Meeks and Davis to drop out? I wonder if their capitulation was due to her directly or the result of inevitability? Rev. Meeks insulted gays, women, Latinos, Asians, and people who knew gays, women, Latinos and Asians. Danny Davis is old (this isn't me being ageist; he's seriously old. Grandfather old. He won't make it!). And he's a demigod in his district. Why would he trade in his demi-deity to paint a target on his back as Mayor of a city with a huge deficit and mounting infrastructure issues? Does the fact she's the last black woman standing mean I'm ready to vote for Carol?
Not really.
To be honest, her reliance on tired Old Black Dude (OBD) traditions makes me, a modern brown woman, even more tired. The OBD circuit is not where I come from. For once, can't we ignore that old dog/pony church circuit show? As the daughter of a pastor, I don't know what's more insulting: politicians polluting a church with their shilling, or pastors allowing them to do it. And watching her play 'gotcha' games (like the flip flop about the tax return) with the media is not helping me. Neither is her futile crusade against the parking meters. (She want to sue because it was a bad deal? They didn't pay enough? I think that milk is spilt.) Her comfort with the OBD circuit ages her - and alienates me.
Is the OBD circuit emblematic of what her administration would be?
Chicago is a city of neighborhoods, but has Braun left hers? Perhaps that's a little unfair of me, but I see a woman in her very well kept Hyde Park home, occasionally venturing out to give a few speeches and raise some money during a luncheon. She's a genteel lady who lunches -and I'm not.
The communicator in me believes in stories - not so much campaign cliches - but narratives of a vision. But what's Carol's story? What's her vision? Will she put Chicago on the path of something new or does she think it's good enough just to maintain the status quo? Where does she see Chicago going and how will she steer it? And why her? What's her value proposition? I've read her site (after weeks of searching for it) and all I can think of is blah blah blah.
On Christmas Eve, M- and I were having lunch somewhere in the art gallery district and overheard some regular guys talking about the Mayoral race. One of them said, 'She's a nice lady. But she just wants a job.'
Ouch.
Folks like me want to know what's inside the package. Black ministers don't do it for me. Neither do the unions. Who are the thinkers, the doers, the innovative creatives who are going to help you get Chicago back on track (if you think the wheels have come off.) When Chicago is threatening to fracture into sectarian groups again, how is she going to engage the whole public to rally around her, as the symbol of this city?
I'm the public, Carol, and you're losing me.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Who is Our Neighbor?: on American faith, floods and community centers
 |
| "Dear God, We thank you for being kind to us./Help us to think of other people./We hope we will be kind to everyone/All through the years." - a prayer written in the Anshai Emeth Temple |
"O...... HELL NO....! How in the world can you suggest that we send money to Pakistan when when we have long term unemployed that are suffering. We have been kicked under a bus and forgotten." - Facebook
"LET THEM FLOAT" - Facebook
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. - Matthew 23:27, ASV
This morning, I checked my Facebook feed and the White House had posted a story about establishing a flood relief fund for Pakistan. The misguided vitriol this post unleashed was predictable but also sad. The political angle can be covered by someone else; I'm interested in what this reaction to millions of flood victims says about the conflicted ways we Americans declare our Christian faith, especially in light of the widespread hysteria over Cordoba House.
In the New Testament, the easiest lessons to be taught are about the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. We see this message repeated in the Beatitudes, in questions about who one's neighbor really is, in parables about good Samaritans and encountering strange women at wells in the middle of the afternoon. It is at the center of Christ's caution to 'him that is without sin, cast the first stone.'
Repeatedly, through Christ's ministry, we are reminded that we are all neighbors, even to those who spitefully use us; this lesson culminates in Christ's ultimate sacrifice, creating grace and forgiveness (and salvation) for all of us, even those who crucified him. The simplest reading of Christianity asks us to model Christ's sacrifice as well as his ability to love (through thought and action) his enemies.
For me, more than sticking to dogma or doctrine (which are often distractions against loving one's neighbor), learning to love my neighbor is a constant struggle. My neighbor is the rabid racist; the homophobe; the war-mongering, woman-hating Republican. And I am called to be like Christ and to love them, instead of punching them in their pie-hole, the way I really want.
(Like I said, it's a daily struggle and I ask for forgiveness often.)
And, apparently, it is a lesson that most American Christians will never really learn.
When given the opportunity to demonstrate what it means to be Christian, instead of reaching out to our neighbors, we march against Islamic community centers, refuse to help flood victims and justify it with a mealy-mouthed whine about 'us':
'What about us? What about my pain? My suffering? What about my losses?'
Well, what about them?
If we bothered to read our Bibles, we'd know that we are never promised prosperity and safety; what makes us think our pain means anything? It is our condition to experience pain and loss. Holding the pain and fear of 9/11 like a talisman turns it into an idol, an object to worship, rather than using our faith to overcome our pain and fear. By holding such pain close we also reject God's ability to ease our pain and suffering. Why such little faith in what God can do?
It saddens me to see how little faith American so-called Christians have in our faith. It's sad that the most basic of Sunday School lessons is lost in our fiery desire to see others suffer to assauge our own suffering. But, as an old school Baptist preacher's daughter, I'm also worried. Because if the Bible has taught me anything, it's that God has a healthy sense of 'what goes around, comes around.'
If I was one of these Christians breaking the Golden Rule, I'd be a little concerned about that.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
connecting the dots
This is the story of fatal domestic violence: Frantic call after 4 found dead: 'He killed everyone' - Chicago Breaking News.
Though the suspect in this story had a record based in Wisconsin his story is not necessarily unique to it.
This story is also one of our state's weakening social safety net.
In March, a FY11 Department of Human Services budget briefing laid out these stark realities:
Mental health community services would be reduced by $90 million
Mental health providers would be warned to provide only 'crisis' care
All non-Medicaid spending would be eliminated - meaning that acute or chronic care would be unfunded.
Because of these draconian cuts, according to an agency official, the mental healthcare system in Illinois would be set back 30 years. Imagine that.
It's a very basic example of how bad things trickle down:
State budgets get slashed due to billion dollar deficits ->
Public Safety budgets get reduced ->
Human/Social/Mental health services get slashed ->
State programs for the treatment of incarcerated mentally ill adults are defunded ->
Mentally ill prisoners are released to free up space ->
Transitional/supportive housing and care for mentally ill ex-prisoner is eliminated ->
Mentally ill ex-prisoner goes untreated (and unhoused) ->
Mentally ill ex-prisoner re-offends, a result of their untreated mental illness as well as their homelessness ->
Mentally ill ex-prisoner re-enters criminal justice system ->
Criminal justice system catches and releases them again, because there is no money for guards, prisons or treatment.
And so on.
We could play the same game with rehabilitation services, alcohol and drug abuse services, or even childcare. Oh, not to say that all those who receive those services end up in the criminal justice system, but that insufficient funding for each of these areas creates a series of unintended consequences for communities which are ill-equipped to deal with them in the first place.
The community organizations who do this work do it precisely because the state can't.
And now, because of the indefensible lagging and delay of most (not all) of our elected officials, the state won't.
In mental health alone, over 3000 jobs will be lost in Illinois.
Anywhere between 23-87 mental health organizations will close (depending on their niche population.)
4000 adults in residential care will be impacted.
70,000 people (including 4200 children) will no longer have access to mental health care.
Though the suspect in this story had a record based in Wisconsin his story is not necessarily unique to it.
This story is also one of our state's weakening social safety net.
In March, a FY11 Department of Human Services budget briefing laid out these stark realities:
Mental health community services would be reduced by $90 million
Mental health providers would be warned to provide only 'crisis' care
All non-Medicaid spending would be eliminated - meaning that acute or chronic care would be unfunded.
Because of these draconian cuts, according to an agency official, the mental healthcare system in Illinois would be set back 30 years. Imagine that.
It's a very basic example of how bad things trickle down:
State budgets get slashed due to billion dollar deficits ->
Public Safety budgets get reduced ->
Human/Social/Mental health services get slashed ->
State programs for the treatment of incarcerated mentally ill adults are defunded ->
Mentally ill prisoners are released to free up space ->
Transitional/supportive housing and care for mentally ill ex-prisoner is eliminated ->
Mentally ill ex-prisoner goes untreated (and unhoused) ->
Mentally ill ex-prisoner re-offends, a result of their untreated mental illness as well as their homelessness ->
Mentally ill ex-prisoner re-enters criminal justice system ->
Criminal justice system catches and releases them again, because there is no money for guards, prisons or treatment.
And so on.
We could play the same game with rehabilitation services, alcohol and drug abuse services, or even childcare. Oh, not to say that all those who receive those services end up in the criminal justice system, but that insufficient funding for each of these areas creates a series of unintended consequences for communities which are ill-equipped to deal with them in the first place.
The community organizations who do this work do it precisely because the state can't.
And now, because of the indefensible lagging and delay of most (not all) of our elected officials, the state won't.
In mental health alone, over 3000 jobs will be lost in Illinois.
Anywhere between 23-87 mental health organizations will close (depending on their niche population.)
4000 adults in residential care will be impacted.
70,000 people (including 4200 children) will no longer have access to mental health care.
So that's the mental health 'dot.'
In addition to the education 'dot.'
And the public safety 'dot.'
There are a lot more dots if you really want to see them.
How many other dots need to be connected before our elected officials get off their complacent asses shrug off their complacency and do what they need to do?
Friday, February 26, 2010
dear GOP: help my friend get healthcare
Dear GOP:
I'm so glad you're concerned with the plight of the millions of American people (especially women) who are either under-insured or uninsured. Seeing your concern during the Healthcare Summit yesterday prompted me to write you. I'm actually hoping you can help a friend of mine.
She's a very hardworking woman and a rather wonderful friend. (She makes the best hummus, ever!) Like others in the financial services industry, she was laid off a few years ago from a multi-million dollar financial services firm in Chicago and she has only recently been able to find steady work as a sub-contractor for a federal gov't office. In the 3 years between her initial layoff and her contract work now, she has gone back to school and started her own business. But when her rather generous severance package ran out, she had to give up COBRA coverage and purchase an individual healthcare insurance policy.
Then she ran into a few issues. The economy got very soft and she needed to supplement her small income by working some uneven retail jobs. I don't know if you know, but most hourly retail jobs don't pay benefits. Her business wasn't really making a profit and her savings were dwindling. Retail only paid her several hundred dollars a month and her expenses (rent, food, utilities, insurance) were eating the majority of her savings. Pretty soon, her savings were gone. So last year, she went on food stamps and reluctantly canceled her individual health insurance. Later that year, she was late with her rent and when her landlord started to make noises about eviction, she moved in with a friend with a spare room because she was literally steps away from being homeless.
You should know she discovered a lump, too. She's had this lump for about a year now and has never had it checked. Breast cancer is rampant in her family history. She's working a full time job with this federal government office but only as a contractor, which doesn't offer benefits of any kind. So even though she's earning some money, she has to put a lot of it into savings in order to get ready to move out - she can't live in her friend's spare room forever. Anyway, the point is she hasn't gotten her lump checked. It's still there.
I keep telling her there are public services in Illinois for breast screening for low income women (since she only earned $16,000.00 last year, I think she qualifies as low income.) But she refuses because she doesn't want to get slammed with a preexisting condition when she finally gets managed care. And now that flu season is still kicking around in Chicago, she's got this bad cough and her job won't let her take any days off so she's going into work sick. It would be great if she could get a few antibiotics into her.
Can you help her? It would be great if you could let her know that you guys have a plan to resolve her situation.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
A Concerned Friend
I'm so glad you're concerned with the plight of the millions of American people (especially women) who are either under-insured or uninsured. Seeing your concern during the Healthcare Summit yesterday prompted me to write you. I'm actually hoping you can help a friend of mine.
She's a very hardworking woman and a rather wonderful friend. (She makes the best hummus, ever!) Like others in the financial services industry, she was laid off a few years ago from a multi-million dollar financial services firm in Chicago and she has only recently been able to find steady work as a sub-contractor for a federal gov't office. In the 3 years between her initial layoff and her contract work now, she has gone back to school and started her own business. But when her rather generous severance package ran out, she had to give up COBRA coverage and purchase an individual healthcare insurance policy.
Then she ran into a few issues. The economy got very soft and she needed to supplement her small income by working some uneven retail jobs. I don't know if you know, but most hourly retail jobs don't pay benefits. Her business wasn't really making a profit and her savings were dwindling. Retail only paid her several hundred dollars a month and her expenses (rent, food, utilities, insurance) were eating the majority of her savings. Pretty soon, her savings were gone. So last year, she went on food stamps and reluctantly canceled her individual health insurance. Later that year, she was late with her rent and when her landlord started to make noises about eviction, she moved in with a friend with a spare room because she was literally steps away from being homeless.
You should know she discovered a lump, too. She's had this lump for about a year now and has never had it checked. Breast cancer is rampant in her family history. She's working a full time job with this federal government office but only as a contractor, which doesn't offer benefits of any kind. So even though she's earning some money, she has to put a lot of it into savings in order to get ready to move out - she can't live in her friend's spare room forever. Anyway, the point is she hasn't gotten her lump checked. It's still there.
I keep telling her there are public services in Illinois for breast screening for low income women (since she only earned $16,000.00 last year, I think she qualifies as low income.) But she refuses because she doesn't want to get slammed with a preexisting condition when she finally gets managed care. And now that flu season is still kicking around in Chicago, she's got this bad cough and her job won't let her take any days off so she's going into work sick. It would be great if she could get a few antibiotics into her.
Can you help her? It would be great if you could let her know that you guys have a plan to resolve her situation.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
A Concerned Friend
Thursday, February 18, 2010
ready, set, go! maybe.
From the House chamber gallery yesterday, I watched my state reps chit chat, talk on their iPhones, surf the web, eat lunch, snooze, doodle, confab and a few of them were even paying attention to the bill debate going on. What follows is a very paraphrased version of the proceedings:
Dem Rep: ...and so I think my Baby-Daddy registry amendment to bill Such and Such is a good idea.
GOP Rep: Uh, I don't get it. I'm sure my esteemed colleague knows his community best but I'm not sure I get the point.
Dem Rep: Well, there are baby daddies - or maybe not. But we won't know unless there's a list of them. A list of Baby Daddies.
GOP Rep: I still don't get it.
(And the debate continues like this for a while. Then - )
Dem Majority Whip: (standing) This amendment makes no sense; pull it.
Dem Rep: (sigh) I respectfully withdraw my amendment.
GOPRep: I still don't get it!
Sith Lord of the House (aka, Speaker): Next bill, Clerk.
Clerk: On a resolution protesting terrorism, Miranda rights, the use of the super max prison for terrorists who have been Mirandized and extolling all things good about America.
Sith Lord: Who wrote this?
Patriotic GOP Rep: That would be me; I really think it's important to protect our state and read this resolution on the floor because the Obama administration is going to destroy everything we hold dear and this resolution will somehow be meaningful.
Sith Lord: (hard stare and sigh) Why can't this go to committee?
Patriotic GOP Rep: Because I want to read it on the floor. My colleagues agree with me.
(tiny GOP minority cheers)
Sith Lord: Are you sure you don't want this to go to committee?
Patriotic GOP Rep: No. Read it.
Sith Lord: I say we don't read it and I have this handy procedural rule that will allow me to kill it. Duly killed.
Patriotic GOP Rep: I protest!
Sith Lord: I call for a vote: shall I be Sith Lord and have the right to kill this puny resolution or shall I not? Finger vote!
(computer screens all light up)
Sith Lord: 69 votes for me and none for you. Everybody, to my chambers! (exeunt)
And so on for the next hour. I had to give it to the scrappy Patriotic GOP member; while Sith Lord was conferring with his leaders, he tried to reintroduce his resolution but the Sith Lord's second just repeated the procedural vote results from a paper and ignored him over his protests. Up in the gallery, a woman leaned over to me and whispered, "That man over there just got dissed, didn't he?"
I whispered back, "Big time."
She sighed. "This is why nothing ever gets done."
My COO, who was waving to her aunt on the floor, leaned over. "After seeing this, don't you want to be down there?"
"No. I would lose my shit."
She gave me a hard glance. "You know you love it. This is all a show, and you know that. The real work happens in those committee meetings. That guy knew he wouldn't get his amendment. And he knew his resolution wouldn't make it out of his mouth." Nodding down at the now silent Patriotic GOP member.
"And that makes me want to do this, why?"
"You're still young enough to try this and either make it or not. But you have about 3 years to plan. You should make a decision soon. My aunt can help."
Later, at the train station to return to Chicago, my COO introduced me to her uncle, a retired blue collar worker whose main job is to make sure Rep Auntie X made it to her meetings in Springfield from the south side.
As we were shaking hands, the COO said, "She's feeling the call."
Uncle X gave me a look and said, "Well now."
"We'll see," I said. "I'm interested but ..."
"Well," he said. "My wife won't tell you this, but I'm not anybody's elected anything. With every election, the quality is going down. They're getting stupider and stupider. If you're worth it, and my niece doesn't back people who aren't worth it, then you should do it. You'll be needed."
On the train, my COO said. "You'll need 3 years to get a mortgage, a fundraising base and a network. You have a strong network already partly in place. And you need a target. Westside districts will be hard; northside might be doable; southside would be easier. My aunt's would be ideal."
"I don't want to move to the south side!"
"Delia Christina, you need to be serious. If you're going to do this, the DO THIS."
This was still on my mind when I got home, exhausted. If one day of basically nothing exhausted me, what would a whole job do to me? If one session made me disgusted, what would hundreds of them do? If I secretly thought elected official X was an asshat, what would prevent me from calling him that to his face? And if people like me (or you) don't step up, what then? What about my writing? What about the book that's been growing inside me? What about my relationship? And have I said I don't want a frakking mortgage!?
So that's what's on my mind: trying to plan the next three years to maybe be ready for a go in '14. Or not.
Dem Rep: ...and so I think my Baby-Daddy registry amendment to bill Such and Such is a good idea.
GOP Rep: Uh, I don't get it. I'm sure my esteemed colleague knows his community best but I'm not sure I get the point.
Dem Rep: Well, there are baby daddies - or maybe not. But we won't know unless there's a list of them. A list of Baby Daddies.
GOP Rep: I still don't get it.
(And the debate continues like this for a while. Then - )
Dem Majority Whip: (standing) This amendment makes no sense; pull it.
Dem Rep: (sigh) I respectfully withdraw my amendment.
GOPRep: I still don't get it!
Sith Lord of the House (aka, Speaker): Next bill, Clerk.
Clerk: On a resolution protesting terrorism, Miranda rights, the use of the super max prison for terrorists who have been Mirandized and extolling all things good about America.
Sith Lord: Who wrote this?
Patriotic GOP Rep: That would be me; I really think it's important to protect our state and read this resolution on the floor because the Obama administration is going to destroy everything we hold dear and this resolution will somehow be meaningful.
Sith Lord: (hard stare and sigh) Why can't this go to committee?
Patriotic GOP Rep: Because I want to read it on the floor. My colleagues agree with me.
(tiny GOP minority cheers)
Sith Lord: Are you sure you don't want this to go to committee?
Patriotic GOP Rep: No. Read it.
Sith Lord: I say we don't read it and I have this handy procedural rule that will allow me to kill it. Duly killed.
Patriotic GOP Rep: I protest!
Sith Lord: I call for a vote: shall I be Sith Lord and have the right to kill this puny resolution or shall I not? Finger vote!
(computer screens all light up)
Sith Lord: 69 votes for me and none for you. Everybody, to my chambers! (exeunt)
And so on for the next hour. I had to give it to the scrappy Patriotic GOP member; while Sith Lord was conferring with his leaders, he tried to reintroduce his resolution but the Sith Lord's second just repeated the procedural vote results from a paper and ignored him over his protests. Up in the gallery, a woman leaned over to me and whispered, "That man over there just got dissed, didn't he?"
I whispered back, "Big time."
She sighed. "This is why nothing ever gets done."
My COO, who was waving to her aunt on the floor, leaned over. "After seeing this, don't you want to be down there?"
"No. I would lose my shit."
She gave me a hard glance. "You know you love it. This is all a show, and you know that. The real work happens in those committee meetings. That guy knew he wouldn't get his amendment. And he knew his resolution wouldn't make it out of his mouth." Nodding down at the now silent Patriotic GOP member.
"And that makes me want to do this, why?"
"You're still young enough to try this and either make it or not. But you have about 3 years to plan. You should make a decision soon. My aunt can help."
Later, at the train station to return to Chicago, my COO introduced me to her uncle, a retired blue collar worker whose main job is to make sure Rep Auntie X made it to her meetings in Springfield from the south side.
As we were shaking hands, the COO said, "She's feeling the call."
Uncle X gave me a look and said, "Well now."
"We'll see," I said. "I'm interested but ..."
"Well," he said. "My wife won't tell you this, but I'm not anybody's elected anything. With every election, the quality is going down. They're getting stupider and stupider. If you're worth it, and my niece doesn't back people who aren't worth it, then you should do it. You'll be needed."
On the train, my COO said. "You'll need 3 years to get a mortgage, a fundraising base and a network. You have a strong network already partly in place. And you need a target. Westside districts will be hard; northside might be doable; southside would be easier. My aunt's would be ideal."
"I don't want to move to the south side!"
"Delia Christina, you need to be serious. If you're going to do this, the DO THIS."
This was still on my mind when I got home, exhausted. If one day of basically nothing exhausted me, what would a whole job do to me? If one session made me disgusted, what would hundreds of them do? If I secretly thought elected official X was an asshat, what would prevent me from calling him that to his face? And if people like me (or you) don't step up, what then? What about my writing? What about the book that's been growing inside me? What about my relationship? And have I said I don't want a frakking mortgage!?
So that's what's on my mind: trying to plan the next three years to maybe be ready for a go in '14. Or not.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Take me to your Leader
Last summer I was in a conference room with two colleagues and our COO, a very smart and wise woman who had seen things, done things, been in campaigns, had managed people, teams and orgs – and had a mixture of savvy and thoughtfulness I wanted to emulate. It was at the height of the state budget crisis and we were all afraid of losing our jobs, feeling pressured to make sure our programs survived and the women we helped would continue to be helped. It was a summer of fear and frustration but also a time when we all stretched ourselves beyond what we thought were capable.
It was also when I learned what it took to lead an organization and how different it felt from the inside of the bubble than the outside.
I was sitting with the PR officer and the Associate Director of Communications and we were crafting both the internal and external communication strategies; on the table was the dicey problem of managing internal fear of mass layoffs and shut downs. Do we tell staff about possible furloughs, layoffs or wait until everything was settled and it was too late for staff to make plans for their families? I was pushing for more transparency, having learned through a corporate lens that if you trust your frontline with difficult news they can come through for you and the fear and panic will likely subside once they know what’s happening.
The PR officer was feeling frustrated at the perception people seemed to be stalling making decisions and our AD was arguing for adopting a really conservative, cautious line. So the COO walked in on our intense debate and after she listened for a bit she closed the door.
‘I’m not supposed to share these things but I think I should in order to share with you what’s happening at the senior management level. So you know what we’re struggling with. In a RIF over a certain size, there are state and federal rules that mandate how much notice you need to give your employees. If it’s up to and over 50%, it’s 60 days. If it’s about 25%, then 30. But we don’t know what contingency plans we’ll have to put in place, yet. We just don’t know.
But RIFs alone won’t save the agency, and we need to save the agency. It’s in our charter and bylaws, we’re mandated by our Board and there you are. So there are furloughs or pay cuts for those who survive the RIF. But how to structure furloughs? If we structure it badly, it impacts health benefits and at a time like this we all need our benefits; if we structure it badly, we could also expose the agency to risk, in terms of legal action. And we’re also trying to do the right thing and abide by the laws and statutes of the state. So we’re trying to find little bits of a puzzle at a time when we’re flying completely in the dark.
We also don’t want to create a panic. We can’t have half our staff quitting in fear when we still have work to do. So you see that we are dealing with all these details that could have some serious, lasting ramifications for our employees.’ She paused. ‘So, in our position, what would you do?’
We were silent. All the debating flew out the window. The differences of opinion flew out the window when faced with the heavy details and choices our bosses would have to make – choices that would materially impact a working family.
‘We are so fucked,’ I said. There was laughter. ‘You’re right. We can’t go public with all this. They’d freak. I’m freaking just listening to you.’
The COO smiled. ‘And this has been what’s happening at every senior manager meeting, every day. We’re all freaking. Just control the panic until we can figure out the least harmful way of dealing with this mess. And get us that budget back, Delia.’
(When she left the room, I’m sure that’s the moment our PR officer decided to revise her resume and go on the market.)
From the outside, it looked like our leaders were fumbling in the dark, deliberately not sharing information for bad purposes, or withholding the truth for some weird lack of trust (which was sometimes deserved); on the inside, the choices to be made were so weighty, the details and consequences so damaging, a workable solution couldn’t be arrived at, yet.
From the outside, they lacked leadership and direction; they weren’t fighting hard enough; they weren’t doing what they promised; they weren’t doing what we wanted them to do. From the inside, they knew damage would occur, but were still struggling with how to triage the damage.
What would you do? How would you lead?
Talking about leadership (which I do a lot) and actually leading – while taking in the entire contextual universe of that act – is hard. And it’s not about winning. ‘Winning’ and leading are sometimes in conflict. Did my agency win? Hard to say. We’re still around. But that RIF took place; we laid off about 30% of our headcount; we lost 10% of our multi-million dollar funding. There were pay reductions; there were service reductions. There was anger and resentment; we said goodbye to some good people. We lost a lot.
But we came through it because our leadership made really hard decisions that were not going to feel good for the rest of us – and their decisions were made with the intent of trying to mitigate the damage to the rest of us.
For the past several months, I’ve been reading all sorts of right and left analysis of what’s happening with the Obama administration. I keep reading posts and articles admonishing more ‘fight,’ more ‘kick ass,’ more ‘do something’ – which all imply winning, not necessarily leading.
And what they’ve been saying has reminded me of that conference room debate I had with my coworkers. Why isn’t more being done? Why aren’t they telling us? Why aren’t they fighting harder? Why are they not telling us the truth?
I don’t have answers to any of that. But I know questions like those come from a position of fear and desperation, emotional states that don’t lead to good decision making. And I also know this: until some of these sideline analysts and writers are ready to put on their big girl panties and sit in that big chair and make the decisions that will bring down damage in order to save the larger whole, then those folks need toshut the fuck up reevaluate what they really want in a leader.
It was also when I learned what it took to lead an organization and how different it felt from the inside of the bubble than the outside.
I was sitting with the PR officer and the Associate Director of Communications and we were crafting both the internal and external communication strategies; on the table was the dicey problem of managing internal fear of mass layoffs and shut downs. Do we tell staff about possible furloughs, layoffs or wait until everything was settled and it was too late for staff to make plans for their families? I was pushing for more transparency, having learned through a corporate lens that if you trust your frontline with difficult news they can come through for you and the fear and panic will likely subside once they know what’s happening.
The PR officer was feeling frustrated at the perception people seemed to be stalling making decisions and our AD was arguing for adopting a really conservative, cautious line. So the COO walked in on our intense debate and after she listened for a bit she closed the door.
‘I’m not supposed to share these things but I think I should in order to share with you what’s happening at the senior management level. So you know what we’re struggling with. In a RIF over a certain size, there are state and federal rules that mandate how much notice you need to give your employees. If it’s up to and over 50%, it’s 60 days. If it’s about 25%, then 30. But we don’t know what contingency plans we’ll have to put in place, yet. We just don’t know.
But RIFs alone won’t save the agency, and we need to save the agency. It’s in our charter and bylaws, we’re mandated by our Board and there you are. So there are furloughs or pay cuts for those who survive the RIF. But how to structure furloughs? If we structure it badly, it impacts health benefits and at a time like this we all need our benefits; if we structure it badly, we could also expose the agency to risk, in terms of legal action. And we’re also trying to do the right thing and abide by the laws and statutes of the state. So we’re trying to find little bits of a puzzle at a time when we’re flying completely in the dark.
We also don’t want to create a panic. We can’t have half our staff quitting in fear when we still have work to do. So you see that we are dealing with all these details that could have some serious, lasting ramifications for our employees.’ She paused. ‘So, in our position, what would you do?’
We were silent. All the debating flew out the window. The differences of opinion flew out the window when faced with the heavy details and choices our bosses would have to make – choices that would materially impact a working family.
‘We are so fucked,’ I said. There was laughter. ‘You’re right. We can’t go public with all this. They’d freak. I’m freaking just listening to you.’
The COO smiled. ‘And this has been what’s happening at every senior manager meeting, every day. We’re all freaking. Just control the panic until we can figure out the least harmful way of dealing with this mess. And get us that budget back, Delia.’
(When she left the room, I’m sure that’s the moment our PR officer decided to revise her resume and go on the market.)
From the outside, it looked like our leaders were fumbling in the dark, deliberately not sharing information for bad purposes, or withholding the truth for some weird lack of trust (which was sometimes deserved); on the inside, the choices to be made were so weighty, the details and consequences so damaging, a workable solution couldn’t be arrived at, yet.
From the outside, they lacked leadership and direction; they weren’t fighting hard enough; they weren’t doing what they promised; they weren’t doing what we wanted them to do. From the inside, they knew damage would occur, but were still struggling with how to triage the damage.
What would you do? How would you lead?
Talking about leadership (which I do a lot) and actually leading – while taking in the entire contextual universe of that act – is hard. And it’s not about winning. ‘Winning’ and leading are sometimes in conflict. Did my agency win? Hard to say. We’re still around. But that RIF took place; we laid off about 30% of our headcount; we lost 10% of our multi-million dollar funding. There were pay reductions; there were service reductions. There was anger and resentment; we said goodbye to some good people. We lost a lot.
But we came through it because our leadership made really hard decisions that were not going to feel good for the rest of us – and their decisions were made with the intent of trying to mitigate the damage to the rest of us.
For the past several months, I’ve been reading all sorts of right and left analysis of what’s happening with the Obama administration. I keep reading posts and articles admonishing more ‘fight,’ more ‘kick ass,’ more ‘do something’ – which all imply winning, not necessarily leading.
And what they’ve been saying has reminded me of that conference room debate I had with my coworkers. Why isn’t more being done? Why aren’t they telling us? Why aren’t they fighting harder? Why are they not telling us the truth?
I don’t have answers to any of that. But I know questions like those come from a position of fear and desperation, emotional states that don’t lead to good decision making. And I also know this: until some of these sideline analysts and writers are ready to put on their big girl panties and sit in that big chair and make the decisions that will bring down damage in order to save the larger whole, then those folks need to
Friday, January 22, 2010
ideas (and preparation) matter: cook county board president candidate forum
Last night I went to the Cook County President Candidate forum sponsored by local domestic violence and sexual violence orgs and I have never had such a stupendously clear example of how *not* to present yourself to an important constituency. It was really disappointing that not a single GOP candidate (or Dem O'Brien) mustered the energy to attend. While there may have been legitimate reasons why they were absent (hey, I know schedules can get weird) they've left the women in that packed room no choice but to say to folks, "XX Candidate doesn't give a shit about violence against women."
Is that an unfair characterization? Perhaps. Too bad they weren't there to counter it.
Should the Cook County President even care about violence against women? Considering how domestic and sexual violence impacts the women/girls and LGBTQ community in this county, and how we may/may not be accessing services through the public healthcare system or may/may not be interacting with law enforcement - yes, the Cook County President should goddamn care how a public health/safety issue is impacting at least 1/4 of the goddamn population.
(You can read my Tweets about it last night here.)
What I learned last night:
1. The importance of a good moderator: Kimbriell Kelly was awesome. She didn't let candidates get away with anything. When Stroger drifted into generalities, she pressed him for specifics and clarification. When Brown tried to rest on her laurels about funding, she rode Brown to lay out a specific implementation plan to counter violence against women. When Tresser just looked nuts and repeated himself about fighting corruption and waste, she pretty much called that a red herring. And, yes, she also pressed Preckwinkle to be more specific about best practices.
2. The importance of having good ideas: I would gladly stand next to Tom Tresser in a protest. The guy is relentless. He fought against the Olympic bid (yay!), the Oprah show (huh?) and has been a non profit leader, a social justice activist and community activist for years. I bet he even buys organic vegetables. But as a candidate he is a disaster. I have no doubt he wants reform in our county gov't and that it needs reform. But while the spirit is willing, his talk is crazy. Ideas matter. Having a few would be a good idea.
When he said that he would defund the sheriff's department as a response to the practice of shackling female prisoners while they give birth, Brown gave him a 'you are so crazy' side glance that made the two back rows snort aloud. That's your idea, Tom? Really? You're going to stand by that?
Speaking of Brown: it's true the county needs cash. (Take a close look at CTBA's analysis of the county system, sometime.) But if your only viable problem-solving solution, with the exception of establishing task forces and committees, is to source revenue then why call yourself President? Why not just run for the Chief Development and Revenue Officer, or something like that? I don't see the flexibility in her thinking.
It was disappointing that no one had a sufficient answer to my question: how would they prepare county providers for the fallout should a state budget fail to materialize?
I know that Stroger has become sort of a walking joke in this town - and last night did nothing to dispel it. The guy is checked out. He looked disengaged from the entire process. His answers were defensive, vague and lacking in specifics. Did anyone prepare him at all for that forum? I mean, give the guy a fact sheet on the issue, for god's sake. The only fire he showed was when he snapped on Brown for saying he didn't sit on a certain com'tee. 'My representative sits on that com'tee for me,' he snitted. Brown snitted back and for a couple of minutes it was like being at a Sunday dinner with some crazy deacons.
Jesus Christ, this is what we have to work with.
3. The importance of knowing what the hell you're talking about - and who actually gets the work done: This is Toni Preckwinkle's strength. I don't know if she's a fast learner or knew this stuff before, but for every question she answered she gave an example of a best practice. When asked what they've done to combat violence against women, the only thing Stroger could say was he implemented a program to tow johns' cars in the act of soliciting. Preckwinkle pointed to the excellent work of a program called End Demand and detailed what they did and how she supports programs like that in order to shift the burden away from arresting protitutes which doesn't do anything except to further destabilize women. That's a smart answer. That's an answer that shows some little study; it shows a more flexible way of thinking about domestic trafficking - and it's an acknowledgment that domestic violence and sexual violence orgs actually do the work bloated municipalities can't.
She plays to her strength which is knowing what's happening on the ground. Why couldn't Tom (who's on the ground) articulate that? If the county is strapped it's going to have to rely more on community orgs to deliver services for it. She sees that the county is going to have to become more of a facilitator of services and in order to do that, you need the right ideas and the right folks in place to get that done.
(And no. I have never paid Toni Preckwinkle this much attention before last night. She always seemed kind of crabby when I spoke with her.)
4. If they can do it, so can you: Swear to god, if these people can run for office, show up completely out of their depth, spout inanities and get away with it, so can you. But don't do what they do. Be better than they are. Apply for training with IWIL.org. Or go to a DFA training. Or register with The White House Project. Study your issues. Raise some cash. Just be better than they are.
Please. For the love of our democracy.
Is that an unfair characterization? Perhaps. Too bad they weren't there to counter it.
Should the Cook County President even care about violence against women? Considering how domestic and sexual violence impacts the women/girls and LGBTQ community in this county, and how we may/may not be accessing services through the public healthcare system or may/may not be interacting with law enforcement - yes, the Cook County President should goddamn care how a public health/safety issue is impacting at least 1/4 of the goddamn population.
(You can read my Tweets about it last night here.)
What I learned last night:
1. The importance of a good moderator: Kimbriell Kelly was awesome. She didn't let candidates get away with anything. When Stroger drifted into generalities, she pressed him for specifics and clarification. When Brown tried to rest on her laurels about funding, she rode Brown to lay out a specific implementation plan to counter violence against women. When Tresser just looked nuts and repeated himself about fighting corruption and waste, she pretty much called that a red herring. And, yes, she also pressed Preckwinkle to be more specific about best practices.
2. The importance of having good ideas: I would gladly stand next to Tom Tresser in a protest. The guy is relentless. He fought against the Olympic bid (yay!), the Oprah show (huh?) and has been a non profit leader, a social justice activist and community activist for years. I bet he even buys organic vegetables. But as a candidate he is a disaster. I have no doubt he wants reform in our county gov't and that it needs reform. But while the spirit is willing, his talk is crazy. Ideas matter. Having a few would be a good idea.
When he said that he would defund the sheriff's department as a response to the practice of shackling female prisoners while they give birth, Brown gave him a 'you are so crazy' side glance that made the two back rows snort aloud. That's your idea, Tom? Really? You're going to stand by that?
Speaking of Brown: it's true the county needs cash. (Take a close look at CTBA's analysis of the county system, sometime.) But if your only viable problem-solving solution, with the exception of establishing task forces and committees, is to source revenue then why call yourself President? Why not just run for the Chief Development and Revenue Officer, or something like that? I don't see the flexibility in her thinking.
It was disappointing that no one had a sufficient answer to my question: how would they prepare county providers for the fallout should a state budget fail to materialize?
I know that Stroger has become sort of a walking joke in this town - and last night did nothing to dispel it. The guy is checked out. He looked disengaged from the entire process. His answers were defensive, vague and lacking in specifics. Did anyone prepare him at all for that forum? I mean, give the guy a fact sheet on the issue, for god's sake. The only fire he showed was when he snapped on Brown for saying he didn't sit on a certain com'tee. 'My representative sits on that com'tee for me,' he snitted. Brown snitted back and for a couple of minutes it was like being at a Sunday dinner with some crazy deacons.
Jesus Christ, this is what we have to work with.
3. The importance of knowing what the hell you're talking about - and who actually gets the work done: This is Toni Preckwinkle's strength. I don't know if she's a fast learner or knew this stuff before, but for every question she answered she gave an example of a best practice. When asked what they've done to combat violence against women, the only thing Stroger could say was he implemented a program to tow johns' cars in the act of soliciting. Preckwinkle pointed to the excellent work of a program called End Demand and detailed what they did and how she supports programs like that in order to shift the burden away from arresting protitutes which doesn't do anything except to further destabilize women. That's a smart answer. That's an answer that shows some little study; it shows a more flexible way of thinking about domestic trafficking - and it's an acknowledgment that domestic violence and sexual violence orgs actually do the work bloated municipalities can't.
She plays to her strength which is knowing what's happening on the ground. Why couldn't Tom (who's on the ground) articulate that? If the county is strapped it's going to have to rely more on community orgs to deliver services for it. She sees that the county is going to have to become more of a facilitator of services and in order to do that, you need the right ideas and the right folks in place to get that done.
(And no. I have never paid Toni Preckwinkle this much attention before last night. She always seemed kind of crabby when I spoke with her.)
4. If they can do it, so can you: Swear to god, if these people can run for office, show up completely out of their depth, spout inanities and get away with it, so can you. But don't do what they do. Be better than they are. Apply for training with IWIL.org. Or go to a DFA training. Or register with The White House Project. Study your issues. Raise some cash. Just be better than they are.
Please. For the love of our democracy.
Friday, January 15, 2010
What I Learned This Week
1. I learned 6 strategies and tactics that should help me on the market this year (through these folks) - and simultaneously learned that I've been wasting valuable time on my jobsearch. Oh, and I finally learned what 'personal branding' meant. (Do you have an interview bucket list? Me neither!! Do you have your communication strategy in place? I don't!)
2. I learned that I have a short fuse when it comes to gathering consensus. It's so clear to me what an action plan should be and it pains me to have to wait until other, dithering folks come around. In other words, I don't frakking care. You want something done, or don't you? Then *do* it.
A note: if you are a non profit taking an advocacy position you are afraid your Board will not support, take the time to cultivate and engage them on the issue; not doing this leads to vague, unclear, ineffective communication, your advocacy efforts die on the vine, and your Board becomes a hindrance rather than a help. They individually may not be 'for' tax increases, but the services your agency delivers relies on increased state revenue - which comes from taxes and which impacts the folks you serve. Effective issue advocacy can't happen unless you have a Board willing to 'get' it.
3. I've also learned that we (i.e., the U.S., the 'West', France, the industrialized world) have royally, historically screwed over Haiti; the teeny bit of aid we're sending over there is a drop of relief in a vast ocean of FUBAR we (the U.S.) have left them to drown in.
For example:
However, due to the fact that France and its allies (including the United States) forced Haiti to make reparations to French slaveholders in 1852 in the amount of 90 million gold francs ($21 billion today), Haiti was forced to pay France for the next one hundred years for its independence and has subsequently become the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. (here)
100 years to pay rich countries $21 billion. What the HELL is that?!
4. I've learned how important it is to be authentically You. (This isn't about me, but about folks in general, and women of color in particular, so maybe this is about me. But it isn't really. It really was prompted by something happening to someone else. Really.)
I thought being an academic was my authentic self; but my years with a coach and a therapist showed me how it never felt authentic to me at all and was a burden to me for a long time. For years, thinking about being an academic, and then not being an academic, gave me panic attacks. Authenticity isn't supposed to send you into panic. Sure, am I a smarty pants? Yes. But this right now is my authentic self - a self that couldn't exist without that other one.
My 66-yr old father is finally discovering his 'authentic self' and it has nothing to do with being a pastor, father, grandfather or whatever other box we've put him in. (His journey has made me closer to him and I can only hope my sister can make it through her journey of finding her authentic self - beyond 'Good Wife' or 'Dutiful Daughter.')
5. It's also freaking hard to eat only 1400 calories a day - especially during a Chicago winter. And having a boyfriend is great but hanging out with him watching old horror movies. LOST and Dr. Who is making my ass spread (hey! don't be dirty); add to that the stress of work and the few pounds I'd shed creep back. Dude. I need to get back on track. Deciding how to spread 1400 calories over a full work day without feeling ravenous by the time I get home is fucking hard.
But I also have to be ok with myself. Getting to the other side of 200 will be a long-term commitment. I'm not going to get it right all the time but, eventually, I'll get there.
6. Speaking of M-, I've learned that I've chosen my choice. He's on my team now. I'm learning what it takes to be One instead of Two. And, yes, it's just as wrenching as I thought it would be.
Shit. I'm going to be late. M- is coming over for movies and whatnot. Gotta go and pick up some beer.
(Damn! There go my 1400 calories.)
2. I learned that I have a short fuse when it comes to gathering consensus. It's so clear to me what an action plan should be and it pains me to have to wait until other, dithering folks come around. In other words, I don't frakking care. You want something done, or don't you? Then *do* it.
A note: if you are a non profit taking an advocacy position you are afraid your Board will not support, take the time to cultivate and engage them on the issue; not doing this leads to vague, unclear, ineffective communication, your advocacy efforts die on the vine, and your Board becomes a hindrance rather than a help. They individually may not be 'for' tax increases, but the services your agency delivers relies on increased state revenue - which comes from taxes and which impacts the folks you serve. Effective issue advocacy can't happen unless you have a Board willing to 'get' it.
3. I've also learned that we (i.e., the U.S., the 'West', France, the industrialized world) have royally, historically screwed over Haiti; the teeny bit of aid we're sending over there is a drop of relief in a vast ocean of FUBAR we (the U.S.) have left them to drown in.
For example:
However, due to the fact that France and its allies (including the United States) forced Haiti to make reparations to French slaveholders in 1852 in the amount of 90 million gold francs ($21 billion today), Haiti was forced to pay France for the next one hundred years for its independence and has subsequently become the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. (here)
100 years to pay rich countries $21 billion. What the HELL is that?!
4. I've learned how important it is to be authentically You. (This isn't about me, but about folks in general, and women of color in particular, so maybe this is about me. But it isn't really. It really was prompted by something happening to someone else. Really.)
I thought being an academic was my authentic self; but my years with a coach and a therapist showed me how it never felt authentic to me at all and was a burden to me for a long time. For years, thinking about being an academic, and then not being an academic, gave me panic attacks. Authenticity isn't supposed to send you into panic. Sure, am I a smarty pants? Yes. But this right now is my authentic self - a self that couldn't exist without that other one.
My 66-yr old father is finally discovering his 'authentic self' and it has nothing to do with being a pastor, father, grandfather or whatever other box we've put him in. (His journey has made me closer to him and I can only hope my sister can make it through her journey of finding her authentic self - beyond 'Good Wife' or 'Dutiful Daughter.')
5. It's also freaking hard to eat only 1400 calories a day - especially during a Chicago winter. And having a boyfriend is great but hanging out with him watching old horror movies. LOST and Dr. Who is making my ass spread (hey! don't be dirty); add to that the stress of work and the few pounds I'd shed creep back. Dude. I need to get back on track. Deciding how to spread 1400 calories over a full work day without feeling ravenous by the time I get home is fucking hard.
But I also have to be ok with myself. Getting to the other side of 200 will be a long-term commitment. I'm not going to get it right all the time but, eventually, I'll get there.
6. Speaking of M-, I've learned that I've chosen my choice. He's on my team now. I'm learning what it takes to be One instead of Two. And, yes, it's just as wrenching as I thought it would be.
Shit. I'm going to be late. M- is coming over for movies and whatnot. Gotta go and pick up some beer.
(Damn! There go my 1400 calories.)
Monday, January 04, 2010
on the unintended consequences of bad policy and parental notifications
I don't think anything I write this year will compare to this post at Fugitivus:
Because of my job I've become aware that most legislators don't actually read finer points of policy implications for a new piece of legislation; they want the bullet points. So we give it to them, probably to the detriment of thoughtful policy development. Some of them ask for clarification but they appear to rely on instinct, some electoral soothe-saying, and a smattering of hope that the nit-picky administrative details will be resolved in committee while all they have to do is jump on as sponsor and then vote on it when it's called.
Well, unfortunately, the devil is in those very details they are likely to overlook.
We rely on our elected officials to take care of the public's trust but they are often too 'busy' (see how I give them the benefit of the doubt there?) to actually do it critically, or thoroughly.
Illinois' parental notification law survived a legal challenge and will be in place as of this year. At least, that's what they tell us. Think our bankrupt, overtaxed and janky state system will have a firm enough hand to enforce this badly constructed law? I'm not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, the anti-woman/anti-choice faction has succeeded in building a wall separating young women in crisis from their legal access to a needed legal, medically-approved procedure.
Golf clap, frakkers.
Laws restricting access to medical services are laws restricting access to medical services. They are not laws creating family talks, better worlds, or moral teenagers. They are laws creating restrictions to medical services, which people do not seek unless they need them. Laws creating restrictions to medical services are laws creating restrictions to services people need and need desperately. You can argue that the lawmakers had some kind of noble intentions in mind — I will not buy it, but you can argue that. But you cannot argue that once the law has been in effect and created an inability to comply, and yet remained unchanged. If this was a law about notifying parents, it would have addressed how to notify parents. If this was a law about how to seek a bypass, it would have addressed how to seek a bypass. Since it didn’t address either of those things, this is obviously a law about something else. You only get one guess about what that something else is.The whole post is long but powerful (especially her memory of what it's like to be on the street and needing to come up with plans b/c/d/e & f. This section is almost enough to convince me that most policy discussions/solutions need to start with/come from the people who are actually experiencing what others are trying to legislate or control. Everything else is just academic or intellectual bullshit meddling.)
Because of my job I've become aware that most legislators don't actually read finer points of policy implications for a new piece of legislation; they want the bullet points. So we give it to them, probably to the detriment of thoughtful policy development. Some of them ask for clarification but they appear to rely on instinct, some electoral soothe-saying, and a smattering of hope that the nit-picky administrative details will be resolved in committee while all they have to do is jump on as sponsor and then vote on it when it's called.
Well, unfortunately, the devil is in those very details they are likely to overlook.
We rely on our elected officials to take care of the public's trust but they are often too 'busy' (see how I give them the benefit of the doubt there?) to actually do it critically, or thoroughly.
Illinois' parental notification law survived a legal challenge and will be in place as of this year. At least, that's what they tell us. Think our bankrupt, overtaxed and janky state system will have a firm enough hand to enforce this badly constructed law? I'm not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, the anti-woman/anti-choice faction has succeeded in building a wall separating young women in crisis from their legal access to a needed legal, medically-approved procedure.
Golf clap, frakkers.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
halloween is for *kids*
i'd post a couple of h'ween pics from the party on saturday but, uh, they are not appropriate for public consumption.
note to self: just because the open bar closes in 20 minutes does not mean that BOTH hands must hold pints of Gumball. nor does it mean that, at the next bar, one must switch from beer to jameson.
highlight of the night? overhearing a girlfriend's boyfriend murmur, 'you know, i actually like how i feel wearing a dress' and watching a girlfriend take a photo of M-'s spandex-clad crotch.
sorry the posting has been so undergrad-y, lately. i haven't even read a newspaper in a few weeks; there are elections going on?? some gov't relations hack i am. but work, as usual, is kicking my ass. tomorrow i take the metra out to the end of the Milwaukee West line to pitch a conservative GOP congressman on why he should include my org on his list of appropriations. (yeah, that means pork!) it'll be the third such meeting - which means i'm submitting 3 proposals to 3 different offices for earmarks.
when folks get upset about 'pork' it's really clear they have NO frakking clue what it takes to get it. it's literally a crap shoot - especially if you're not a hostpital, museum, research facility, university or loaded with juiced up Board members and/or lobbyists/consultants. you talk to a staffer, you pitch your org, you gauge their interest and then you fire a short proposal into the air and if it lands, you sometimes don't know.
if you're lucky enough to actually get through the district staffer then you have to get through the DC staffer, who'll be creating the list for the congressman/senator to review and approve. and then, if you make that round, you might not make the final list before they have to submit to the appropriations com'tee. if you make it onto that list you might have a chance of making it to the omnibus, but it all depends on how the budget negotiations proceed. so you could get knocked off.
in other words, when you're not juiced up with a lobbyist or a personal connection to the elected official, a little org like mine getting 'pork' is a frakking miracle. and pure luck.
and once you get it, you don't really 'get' it. the process shifts from being a discretionary one ('hey, they do good work and could use some support.') to a federal grant. have you ever written a grant proposal for a federal agency? they are frakking long, complicated and onerous. most human services orgs don't have the capacity to write one because it takes a team to do one well. there are budgets, narratives, assurances, and metrics that have to be submitted. in other words, they make you work for your pork. they want every dollar accounted for - if you say you're going to spend $87.50 for a brochure, at the end of the award year your expenses better reflect you spent $87.50 for a brochure.
when it comes to pork, you don't just get a fat check in the mail to do with what you will. they either parse it out to you in small chunks per quarter or you incur the initial cost of providing the service and they reimburse you for the expense. there is nothing 'free' about this money.
and don't even get me started on how long it takes this process to roll along. if you're applying for FY11 appropriations year, you don't actually receive your money until 18-24 months later.
and? this is one time money. that's it. one year of funding to pilot or support a program and then - poof! gone. it's a lot of effort for brief relief.
so don't talk to me about how pork is evil.
thus endeth the rant. carry on!
note to self: just because the open bar closes in 20 minutes does not mean that BOTH hands must hold pints of Gumball. nor does it mean that, at the next bar, one must switch from beer to jameson.
highlight of the night? overhearing a girlfriend's boyfriend murmur, 'you know, i actually like how i feel wearing a dress' and watching a girlfriend take a photo of M-'s spandex-clad crotch.
sorry the posting has been so undergrad-y, lately. i haven't even read a newspaper in a few weeks; there are elections going on?? some gov't relations hack i am. but work, as usual, is kicking my ass. tomorrow i take the metra out to the end of the Milwaukee West line to pitch a conservative GOP congressman on why he should include my org on his list of appropriations. (yeah, that means pork!) it'll be the third such meeting - which means i'm submitting 3 proposals to 3 different offices for earmarks.
when folks get upset about 'pork' it's really clear they have NO frakking clue what it takes to get it. it's literally a crap shoot - especially if you're not a hostpital, museum, research facility, university or loaded with juiced up Board members and/or lobbyists/consultants. you talk to a staffer, you pitch your org, you gauge their interest and then you fire a short proposal into the air and if it lands, you sometimes don't know.
if you're lucky enough to actually get through the district staffer then you have to get through the DC staffer, who'll be creating the list for the congressman/senator to review and approve. and then, if you make that round, you might not make the final list before they have to submit to the appropriations com'tee. if you make it onto that list you might have a chance of making it to the omnibus, but it all depends on how the budget negotiations proceed. so you could get knocked off.
in other words, when you're not juiced up with a lobbyist or a personal connection to the elected official, a little org like mine getting 'pork' is a frakking miracle. and pure luck.
and once you get it, you don't really 'get' it. the process shifts from being a discretionary one ('hey, they do good work and could use some support.') to a federal grant. have you ever written a grant proposal for a federal agency? they are frakking long, complicated and onerous. most human services orgs don't have the capacity to write one because it takes a team to do one well. there are budgets, narratives, assurances, and metrics that have to be submitted. in other words, they make you work for your pork. they want every dollar accounted for - if you say you're going to spend $87.50 for a brochure, at the end of the award year your expenses better reflect you spent $87.50 for a brochure.
when it comes to pork, you don't just get a fat check in the mail to do with what you will. they either parse it out to you in small chunks per quarter or you incur the initial cost of providing the service and they reimburse you for the expense. there is nothing 'free' about this money.
and don't even get me started on how long it takes this process to roll along. if you're applying for FY11 appropriations year, you don't actually receive your money until 18-24 months later.
and? this is one time money. that's it. one year of funding to pilot or support a program and then - poof! gone. it's a lot of effort for brief relief.
so don't talk to me about how pork is evil.
thus endeth the rant. carry on!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
our current political moment is like a bad bible study flashback
For those of you who go to church, grew up in a fundamentalist church, or was dragged to an evangelical campus bible study group once (once is all it takes, frankly) then I want you to think of the WORST bible study group you ever encountered.
You know what I'm talking about. Maybe it was the lay leader. Maybe s/he chose an obscure passage from....crap. One of the little Old Testament books or, god forbid, Hebrews. And then this lay leader, who didn't go to seminary but sure had a lot of tabs in their bible, decided to do a little lay-exigesis.
(Shudder.)
Or maybe you were up really late one night and you stumbled upon the late night ramblings of Gene Scott's daughter, standing there, spitting out random Greek and Hebrew translations, making bizarre diagrams and then connecting all dots leading to the Rapture.
THAT is what this video triggers.
And it is what scares the CRAP out of me if 'their side' wins.
Monday, September 14, 2009
where cognitive dissonance rears its confused head
like every other morning, i'm watching GMA while i get dressed.
and, like every other morning, they are covering the latest happening in PObama's healthcare reform push. and, like every other morning, their coverage makes my head explode.
first, there's Stephanopoulous reviewing PObama's poll numbers; an ABC poll finds that folks are just about evenly split. 48% for; 48% against the way PObama has been handling this. (which i find a stupid question, anyway.) then george notices that the poll numbers get slightly worse when the dreaded Public Option is mentioned and that if PObama just dropped the Public Option then maybe his numbers would jump a couple of points, rightly or wrongly.
and this is when my head exploded.
rightly or wrongly?
why are we still acting like this healthcare reform fight is like who's running for senior class president in high school? rightly or wrongly, this isn't a popularity contest. rightly or wrongly, we seem to be in danger of caving into the demands of people whose demands have no bearing on reality or fact. rightly or wrongly, we are illogically ceding this fight to the really stupid masses who think that making their healthcare affordable will make their healthcare worse than it is now. rightly or wrongly, there is nothing worse than now.
i mean, rightly or wrongly, i CANNOT afford my healthcare.
rightly or wrongly, i have hobo mouth and will need an oral surgeon (who will be charging to my medical insurance) to extract two problematic teeth and, rightly or wrongly, the cost (nearly $6000) will almost certainly bankrupt me if i cannot think of some way to pay for it. rightly or wrongly, the bacterial infection in one tooth could spread if left untreated and could lead to nerve damage or worse.
you know, rightly or wrongly.
rightly or wrongly, without a public option, healthcare reform will be negligible.
and, like every other morning, they are covering the latest happening in PObama's healthcare reform push. and, like every other morning, their coverage makes my head explode.
first, there's Stephanopoulous reviewing PObama's poll numbers; an ABC poll finds that folks are just about evenly split. 48% for; 48% against the way PObama has been handling this. (which i find a stupid question, anyway.) then george notices that the poll numbers get slightly worse when the dreaded Public Option is mentioned and that if PObama just dropped the Public Option then maybe his numbers would jump a couple of points, rightly or wrongly.
and this is when my head exploded.
rightly or wrongly?
why are we still acting like this healthcare reform fight is like who's running for senior class president in high school? rightly or wrongly, this isn't a popularity contest. rightly or wrongly, we seem to be in danger of caving into the demands of people whose demands have no bearing on reality or fact. rightly or wrongly, we are illogically ceding this fight to the really stupid masses who think that making their healthcare affordable will make their healthcare worse than it is now. rightly or wrongly, there is nothing worse than now.
i mean, rightly or wrongly, i CANNOT afford my healthcare.
rightly or wrongly, i have hobo mouth and will need an oral surgeon (who will be charging to my medical insurance) to extract two problematic teeth and, rightly or wrongly, the cost (nearly $6000) will almost certainly bankrupt me if i cannot think of some way to pay for it. rightly or wrongly, the bacterial infection in one tooth could spread if left untreated and could lead to nerve damage or worse.
you know, rightly or wrongly.
rightly or wrongly, without a public option, healthcare reform will be negligible.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
in the weeds
I am a Bruin from the early 90s. I went to UCLA at the apotheosis of Derrida, the battles for ethnic studies, Bloomian debates about the value of multiculturalism, the identity wars, the canon wars, and the LA Riots/Uprising.
Two events stood out for me during that time: my introduction to semiotics and becoming a AAP tutor for first generation students of color. (If there are old Bruins of color out there from the 90s, give a shout out if you were AAP, too.) The two events stand out because they reinforced each other.
I remember reading some text, about Saussure, explaining the signifier, the signified, the sign and how this can be a lens through which to create meaning, or interpret meaning, in the world and it was like that moment in The Matrix, when Neo could finally see the code running behind everything. It was the concept of systems of meaning, of 'hidden' ideologies and values that fascinated me. It was glorious play to break down the semiotic system of the Western, for instance; or to disassemble the semiotic system of a Vogue magazine. Lay over this a growing gendered and racial politicization through hanging out with feminist and proud brown undergrad and grad student tutors in AAP (who could even politicize math) and suddenly my way of looking at the world changed.
Like Paul on Damascus, my scales had fallen away.
There are no accidents, my reading taught me. There is no 'But, it's just a monkey!' Because the chain of signification doesn't end with the word or image 'monkey.' Every piece of the sign has its own signifier and signified, and these bits have cultural histories and meanings of their own. The words and images are fraught with ideological, culturally hegemonic meaning; for something to be without value or meaning, its conception would need never to happen.
It is sheer mental laziness that people cannot ask simple critical questions about what is going on around them:
What does this mean (both literally and ideologically?)
Where is this coming from?
What is the value system manifested by this event/image/language, etc.?
Where do I meet these values?
Where do these values come from? (what is the context?)
Who wants me to agree with these values and meanings?
Who benefits from my agreement?
Who doesn't?
From my Tweets, you can probably tell I've been taking a look at the Van Jones resignation and the rhetoric that led to his resignation.
What does this resignation mean? It means several things. It
means that we lost an important policy maker and progressive on the frontline of
green economies and policy; it means that it will be that much harder to bring
green economic empowerment to urban (i.e., of color) communities; it means that,
once again, a smart man was brought low (however temporarily) by mediocre minds
beneath him.
From the opposing side, it means that the Big Black Buck stereotype
works.
It also means that the progressive movement is wearing a target on its
front.
Where did this come from? It came from Glenn Beck who has lost all
his major advertising sponsors because of the petition campaign waged by
ColorofChange (of which Jones was a founder) in protest to his white supremacist
remarks about President Obama. He, and other conservative hosts, drew a
target on Jones and went for it.
What is being valued? In the action against Jones, racial
stereotypes, racialized anxiety about communists and militants and 'un-American'
behavior is in play. In the larger political drama, the values of the
status quo are firmly supported.
Where do I meet these values? They bother me, deeply. Beck's
campaign was as big an example of race-baiting that I've ever seen.
(Let's pause here: what distinguishes the campaign that ColorofChange
launched against Beck and the one Beck ran against Jones? Ideological
honesty. ColorofChange is an anti-racism and racial justice organization;
Beck's language was identified as supporting the ideas of white supremacy and
they petitioned sponsors to distance themselves. Were Beck's words white
supremacist? Yes. In contrast, Beck's campaign was fabricated out of whole cloth
- both the rationale for it and the claims made in it. Would he admit his attack was racially motivated? No. But it is, because no other explanation has merit.)
Where do these values come from? They come from long-standing white
supremacist history and practice of demonizing people of color who threaten the
perceived status quo or current power structure.
Who wants me to agree with these values? The side Beck fights
for. Those whose interests would not be met by a green economy benefitting
poor communities and communities of color. Those whose interests would not be met by a successful Obama administration.
Who benefits from my agreement? The side Beck fights for. Those
whose interests would not be met by a green economy benefitting poor communities
and communities of color. Those who have an interest in a failed Obama administration.
Who doesn't? Those outside the power structure Beck supports.
(meaning: the rest of us)
Systems are systems. But they aren't impersonal systems. They come from us and we, whether we're talking about race or gender or sexuality or class, have a choice to support the system, to critique the system and/or to dismantle it. (If that's even possible.)
The Van Jones action, and others planned by men like Dobbs, Beck and Limbaugh, has made me look closely at the continuing activities of the GOP and their operators against this administration. It's hard to find what's redeeming about them, anymore.
Do they really want to become (in the words of Tim Wise) the Afrikaner party of the United States? Do they want that? Do they really want to hang a sign on this country that says 'For Whites Only'?
Because if that's what they want, we should call it what it is.
Two events stood out for me during that time: my introduction to semiotics and becoming a AAP tutor for first generation students of color. (If there are old Bruins of color out there from the 90s, give a shout out if you were AAP, too.) The two events stand out because they reinforced each other.
I remember reading some text, about Saussure, explaining the signifier, the signified, the sign and how this can be a lens through which to create meaning, or interpret meaning, in the world and it was like that moment in The Matrix, when Neo could finally see the code running behind everything. It was the concept of systems of meaning, of 'hidden' ideologies and values that fascinated me. It was glorious play to break down the semiotic system of the Western, for instance; or to disassemble the semiotic system of a Vogue magazine. Lay over this a growing gendered and racial politicization through hanging out with feminist and proud brown undergrad and grad student tutors in AAP (who could even politicize math) and suddenly my way of looking at the world changed.
Like Paul on Damascus, my scales had fallen away.
There are no accidents, my reading taught me. There is no 'But, it's just a monkey!' Because the chain of signification doesn't end with the word or image 'monkey.' Every piece of the sign has its own signifier and signified, and these bits have cultural histories and meanings of their own. The words and images are fraught with ideological, culturally hegemonic meaning; for something to be without value or meaning, its conception would need never to happen.
It is sheer mental laziness that people cannot ask simple critical questions about what is going on around them:
What does this mean (both literally and ideologically?)
Where is this coming from?
What is the value system manifested by this event/image/language, etc.?
Where do I meet these values?
Where do these values come from? (what is the context?)
Who wants me to agree with these values and meanings?
Who benefits from my agreement?
Who doesn't?
From my Tweets, you can probably tell I've been taking a look at the Van Jones resignation and the rhetoric that led to his resignation.
What does this resignation mean? It means several things. It
means that we lost an important policy maker and progressive on the frontline of
green economies and policy; it means that it will be that much harder to bring
green economic empowerment to urban (i.e., of color) communities; it means that,
once again, a smart man was brought low (however temporarily) by mediocre minds
beneath him.
From the opposing side, it means that the Big Black Buck stereotype
works.
It also means that the progressive movement is wearing a target on its
front.
Where did this come from? It came from Glenn Beck who has lost all
his major advertising sponsors because of the petition campaign waged by
ColorofChange (of which Jones was a founder) in protest to his white supremacist
remarks about President Obama. He, and other conservative hosts, drew a
target on Jones and went for it.
What is being valued? In the action against Jones, racial
stereotypes, racialized anxiety about communists and militants and 'un-American'
behavior is in play. In the larger political drama, the values of the
status quo are firmly supported.
Where do I meet these values? They bother me, deeply. Beck's
campaign was as big an example of race-baiting that I've ever seen.
(Let's pause here: what distinguishes the campaign that ColorofChange
launched against Beck and the one Beck ran against Jones? Ideological
honesty. ColorofChange is an anti-racism and racial justice organization;
Beck's language was identified as supporting the ideas of white supremacy and
they petitioned sponsors to distance themselves. Were Beck's words white
supremacist? Yes. In contrast, Beck's campaign was fabricated out of whole cloth
- both the rationale for it and the claims made in it. Would he admit his attack was racially motivated? No. But it is, because no other explanation has merit.)
Where do these values come from? They come from long-standing white
supremacist history and practice of demonizing people of color who threaten the
perceived status quo or current power structure.
Who wants me to agree with these values? The side Beck fights
for. Those whose interests would not be met by a green economy benefitting
poor communities and communities of color. Those whose interests would not be met by a successful Obama administration.
Who benefits from my agreement? The side Beck fights for. Those
whose interests would not be met by a green economy benefitting poor communities
and communities of color. Those who have an interest in a failed Obama administration.
Who doesn't? Those outside the power structure Beck supports.
(meaning: the rest of us)
Systems are systems. But they aren't impersonal systems. They come from us and we, whether we're talking about race or gender or sexuality or class, have a choice to support the system, to critique the system and/or to dismantle it. (If that's even possible.)
The Van Jones action, and others planned by men like Dobbs, Beck and Limbaugh, has made me look closely at the continuing activities of the GOP and their operators against this administration. It's hard to find what's redeeming about them, anymore.
Do they really want to become (in the words of Tim Wise) the Afrikaner party of the United States? Do they want that? Do they really want to hang a sign on this country that says 'For Whites Only'?
Because if that's what they want, we should call it what it is.
Monday, August 10, 2009
'the election broke their brains'
worth spreading - and watching:
Rachel Maddow and Frank Schaeffer discussing the increasing hysterical and violent rhetoric (and actions) of the right wing.
Contrast this with the way George Stephanopolous won't press Newt Gingrich when Gingrich defends Sarah Palin's statement about 'death panels' - instead of calling it pure nutbaggery.
it's only 8 months into the Obama term and already the fringe element has reached a level of hysteria that's usually reserved for ...bunkering down and waiting for the Rapture.
Rachel Maddow and Frank Schaeffer discussing the increasing hysterical and violent rhetoric (and actions) of the right wing.
Contrast this with the way George Stephanopolous won't press Newt Gingrich when Gingrich defends Sarah Palin's statement about 'death panels' - instead of calling it pure nutbaggery.
it's only 8 months into the Obama term and already the fringe element has reached a level of hysteria that's usually reserved for ...bunkering down and waiting for the Rapture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)