It has been eight days since Barack Obama was elected POTUS and I'm still beaming from ear to ear! I feel like the country has come out from an eight year hibernation in a cave and it's a new day in America!
On Election Night, Tom and I first went to Mick Kelley's Irish Pub in Burien where a contingent of people from the 33rd and 11th Legislative Districts watched the Election Night speeches on the big screen. John McCain gave a very gracious concession speech and I believe him when he says he will support Obama. When Obama gave his victory speech, Tom and I sobbed. We both grew up during the Civil Rights era. One of the first corporations I worked for after I graduated from college was under a consent decree because of systemic discrimination against women and people of color, and for years proactively hired women and people of color under court order. However, this didn't stop the discrimination that happened once women and people of color were hired. I ended up filing an EEO complaint against the company for gender discrimination and won a promotion and back pay. I consistently saw white men of mediocre talent get promoted over women and people of color of greater ability. When I filed my EEO complaint, women and people of color who rightfully should have been promoted finally got the promotions and pay increases they deserved. At the time, I was 26 years old. Another friend of mine filed a sexual harassment complaint; she too won her complaint as there was concrete evidence of the harassment. But there were many people who were discriminated against who felt powerless, who felt that if they stood up against those in power, that they might lose their jobs. So they put up with the discrimination.
That experience in a sense informed my decision to become a diversity trainer. I have always been interested in issues of social justice. I can remember as early as fifth grade reading books about civil rights and being moved by these stories. I decided rather than sit on the sidelines and bemoan the situation, I wanted to do something about. Originally I became an actor in a diversity theatre company, performing plays about institutionalized racism and facilitating discussions afterwards. Great experience. Afterwards, I worked with several diversity consulting firms and facilitated workshops in corporations throughout the country about workplace diversity. I've also worked with the Anti-Defamation League, working with schools on prejudice reduction and with Green River Community College as an adjunct instructor, teaching Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias in Education.
When I think back to the struggle of women and people of color in our society, and now look at how far we've come, with Hillary Clinton as a viable candidate and Barack Obama as our president-elect, I feel that the battles that many of us have waged have been worth it. The younger generation does not view race in the same way that older people view it, and I believe a lot of that is due to education, and how educators really are taught to not bring their biases into the classroom. There is a strong focus on anti-bias education, and has been for a long time now. And it was that all-important youth vote that was critical in Obama's victory.
I read a great article today. It talked about how Fox News is really helping the Democratic party. By preaching their hate, anti-Muslim rhetoric, and anti-intellectual rants, they push away moderates from the Republican party to the Democratic party so that the only ones left are the hard right, low education voters. Yea, Fox, keep on doing what you're doing! Here's the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111102257.html
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sarah Palin Does Not Value Diversity
One thing that really struck me when watching the two political conventions was that the Democratic Convention was very inclusive. You had young and old, all different ethnicities, people with disabilities. Forty-four percent of the delegates were people of color. What a great representation of our country!
As I watched the Republican Convention, I really had to search the crowd to find a person of color. I also had to search the crowd to find someone under 55. Seriously. It looked like a senior citizen's convention. A white senior citizen's convention.
I remember one Republican pundit saying that they don't have quotas and that's why the Democratic Convention has more people of color. Well, I was part of the caucuses here in Washington State, and we do have goals in order to be more inclusive but guess what? We met most of our goals during the regular caucuses. Meaning, during the Congressional District Caucuses, when the national delegates were elected, we voted for a diverse delegation. Diverse in terms of age, race, sexual orientation, gender and disability status. You see, Democrats are inclusive! We don't limit our delegates to a select group of European-American, upper-middle-class 60-year-olds.
So what does this have to do with Sarah Palin? Apparently, she has absolutely no relationship with the African-American community in Alaska and has not returned any phone calls from one of the African-American leaders in Alaska. She doesn't feel it's important. Check out these two blogs:
http://freerangewriting.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-and-divesity-representation.html
http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-african-americans-in.html
Clearly, we can see where she stands in terms of her relationship with people of color.
As I watched the Republican Convention, I really had to search the crowd to find a person of color. I also had to search the crowd to find someone under 55. Seriously. It looked like a senior citizen's convention. A white senior citizen's convention.
I remember one Republican pundit saying that they don't have quotas and that's why the Democratic Convention has more people of color. Well, I was part of the caucuses here in Washington State, and we do have goals in order to be more inclusive but guess what? We met most of our goals during the regular caucuses. Meaning, during the Congressional District Caucuses, when the national delegates were elected, we voted for a diverse delegation. Diverse in terms of age, race, sexual orientation, gender and disability status. You see, Democrats are inclusive! We don't limit our delegates to a select group of European-American, upper-middle-class 60-year-olds.
So what does this have to do with Sarah Palin? Apparently, she has absolutely no relationship with the African-American community in Alaska and has not returned any phone calls from one of the African-American leaders in Alaska. She doesn't feel it's important. Check out these two blogs:
http://freerangewriting.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-and-divesity-representation.html
http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-african-americans-in.html
Clearly, we can see where she stands in terms of her relationship with people of color.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Politics of Spin
This morning I was watching "Meet the Press", as I do every Sunday morning at 6:00 AM. Boy, the Republicans sure know how to spin an answer.
Rudy Giuliani was being interviewed by Tom Brokaw, and Brokaw was hitting him with some pretty tough questions. First of all, he showed a clip of McCain promising to run a respectful campaign, followed by a recent attack ad in which the McCain campaign states that Obama's only accomplishment in education is providing sex education to kindergarteners! Which is not only patently false (Obama did not sponsor the bill, and the bill is about teaching K-12 children how to avoid sexual predators), Giuliani goes on to blame Obama for McCain's negative ads, saying that McCain wouldn't have to do negative ads if Obama had agreed to town hall meetings!
Then he defends his sarcastic and condescending remark about community organizing in his RNC speech. He turned it around by saying he was referring to how little a record Obama had in community organizing. Sorry Rudy, we all heard what you said. That is NOT what you said. You sneered. You said, "Community organizing". Then you laughed and said, "Yeah," in a mocking tone. It had nothing to do with his record. You were just being an asshole. Then he went on and on about him being the most liberal senator, blah, blah, blah.
When asked about the "bubba" vote, and the impact of those who may not be emotionally prepared to vote for a black man, he answered it very superficially, saying he knows John McCain and he knows that John McCain doesn't want people to vote for him because of race. I call BS on that comment too, because so many ads from the McCain campaign subtly and not-so-subtly paint a picture of the Obamas as "other", trying to appeal to those racist voters who are not comfortable voting for an African-American. And then there are the conservative groups and scurrilous emails that have perpetuated rumors about the Obamas--that portray Michelle Obama as the "angry black woman" or Barack Obama as a Muslim, or an innocent fist bump as a "terrorist fist jab", or the rantings of their pastor as somehow reflective of their views. What I don't understand is why isn't the media looping the story about Todd Palin's ties to a secessionist party? Why isn't the media airing the story about Sarah Palin's pastor saying that any critic of George W. Bush and his policies will burn in hell? Why is there a double standard when it comes to coverage on Republican candidates and Democratic candidates? Liberal bias, my a**! The media is owned by corporations.
We deserve to know about Sarah Palin. This sequestering of Sarah Palin is ludicrous. It should be clear to EVERYONE by now that she does not know anything about foreign policy. She is being hidden from the press because she is not able to answer questions on the fly and the McCain campaign is terrified that she is going to make a fool of herself. She already made a fool of herself in the Charlie Gibson interview when she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. Some people may argue, "Well, so what, not everyone knows what the Bush Doctrine is." Yes, but SHE is running for Vice-President. SHE should know what it is. Clearly that was not one of the things she was PREPPED on. The Vice-Presidential job is not something ygu study for like a test. You need to be prepared, and clearly she knows NOTHING about foreign policy in a time when we are engaged in not one but TWO wars! She says her foreign policy experience is about ENERGY! Give me a break! And then Giuliani tries to defend that position by skirting the issue and saying that it's about her executive experience? What, her part-time position as mayor of a podunk town of 6,000 people and governor of Alaska for less than two years, where she is under investigation for abuse of power? Come on, do you really think we're that stupid?
Please use your vote wisely. This election is way too important to waste it. The McCain/Palin ticket is not about change. The choice of Palin was a calculated move to bring evangelical Christians to the ticket and hopefully women; however, many women realize that Palin does not share their views when it comes to women's reproductive rights. Obama and Biden have a record of supporting women's rights.
This election really matters. It really matters. We can do this.
Rudy Giuliani was being interviewed by Tom Brokaw, and Brokaw was hitting him with some pretty tough questions. First of all, he showed a clip of McCain promising to run a respectful campaign, followed by a recent attack ad in which the McCain campaign states that Obama's only accomplishment in education is providing sex education to kindergarteners! Which is not only patently false (Obama did not sponsor the bill, and the bill is about teaching K-12 children how to avoid sexual predators), Giuliani goes on to blame Obama for McCain's negative ads, saying that McCain wouldn't have to do negative ads if Obama had agreed to town hall meetings!
Then he defends his sarcastic and condescending remark about community organizing in his RNC speech. He turned it around by saying he was referring to how little a record Obama had in community organizing. Sorry Rudy, we all heard what you said. That is NOT what you said. You sneered. You said, "Community organizing". Then you laughed and said, "Yeah," in a mocking tone. It had nothing to do with his record. You were just being an asshole. Then he went on and on about him being the most liberal senator, blah, blah, blah.
When asked about the "bubba" vote, and the impact of those who may not be emotionally prepared to vote for a black man, he answered it very superficially, saying he knows John McCain and he knows that John McCain doesn't want people to vote for him because of race. I call BS on that comment too, because so many ads from the McCain campaign subtly and not-so-subtly paint a picture of the Obamas as "other", trying to appeal to those racist voters who are not comfortable voting for an African-American. And then there are the conservative groups and scurrilous emails that have perpetuated rumors about the Obamas--that portray Michelle Obama as the "angry black woman" or Barack Obama as a Muslim, or an innocent fist bump as a "terrorist fist jab", or the rantings of their pastor as somehow reflective of their views. What I don't understand is why isn't the media looping the story about Todd Palin's ties to a secessionist party? Why isn't the media airing the story about Sarah Palin's pastor saying that any critic of George W. Bush and his policies will burn in hell? Why is there a double standard when it comes to coverage on Republican candidates and Democratic candidates? Liberal bias, my a**! The media is owned by corporations.
We deserve to know about Sarah Palin. This sequestering of Sarah Palin is ludicrous. It should be clear to EVERYONE by now that she does not know anything about foreign policy. She is being hidden from the press because she is not able to answer questions on the fly and the McCain campaign is terrified that she is going to make a fool of herself. She already made a fool of herself in the Charlie Gibson interview when she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. Some people may argue, "Well, so what, not everyone knows what the Bush Doctrine is." Yes, but SHE is running for Vice-President. SHE should know what it is. Clearly that was not one of the things she was PREPPED on. The Vice-Presidential job is not something ygu study for like a test. You need to be prepared, and clearly she knows NOTHING about foreign policy in a time when we are engaged in not one but TWO wars! She says her foreign policy experience is about ENERGY! Give me a break! And then Giuliani tries to defend that position by skirting the issue and saying that it's about her executive experience? What, her part-time position as mayor of a podunk town of 6,000 people and governor of Alaska for less than two years, where she is under investigation for abuse of power? Come on, do you really think we're that stupid?
Please use your vote wisely. This election is way too important to waste it. The McCain/Palin ticket is not about change. The choice of Palin was a calculated move to bring evangelical Christians to the ticket and hopefully women; however, many women realize that Palin does not share their views when it comes to women's reproductive rights. Obama and Biden have a record of supporting women's rights.
This election really matters. It really matters. We can do this.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Register to vote! Educate yourself!
This election REALLY MATTERS this year. If you are not registered to vote, you can do so easily online at the following website:
http://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php?source=091008emailR#
It will take you less than three minutes and you'll even be able to register to vote absentee. I vote absentee because I don't have to worry about how to get to the polls, I get my voters pamphlet early, and I have time to peruse it and decide how I'm going to vote at my leisure before Election Day.
Also, it is VERY important to inform yourself. Watch the news. Read as much as you can. Educate yourself. Don't believe scurrilous rumors. Don't vote for someone because they seem like they'd be nice to have a beer with. Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who truly understands the issues. Vote for someone who you feel truly has your best interests in mind.
http://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php?source=091008emailR#
It will take you less than three minutes and you'll even be able to register to vote absentee. I vote absentee because I don't have to worry about how to get to the polls, I get my voters pamphlet early, and I have time to peruse it and decide how I'm going to vote at my leisure before Election Day.
Also, it is VERY important to inform yourself. Watch the news. Read as much as you can. Educate yourself. Don't believe scurrilous rumors. Don't vote for someone because they seem like they'd be nice to have a beer with. Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who truly understands the issues. Vote for someone who you feel truly has your best interests in mind.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
The culture wars reignited
What has become clear from the Republican National Convention is that John McCain used his surrogates to reignite the culture wars. Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin went on the attack and viciously tore into Senator Obama, throwing out the "red meat" for the party faithful in St. Paul to dig their fangs in. They were sarcastic and condescending. Mean.
Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin invoked the term "community organizing" with utter disdain--indeed, Giuliani laughed and repeated it to the crowd as if to say, "Yeah, can you believe it, community organizing." Do they care that the civil rights movement was the ultimate community organizing? Or the women's movement? Or women's suffrage? Or the American Red Cross? Or the United Way? And it takes RESPONSIBILITY? Oh yeah, it's not that they don't care, THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.
Mitt Romney went on stage and kept on drawing contrasts between LIBERAL values and CONSERVATIVE values and how we need to return to CONSERVATIVE values, and blah blah blah. Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. It is YOUR Conservative party and Conservative values that got us into this mess that we're in now by voting for Bush not ONCE but TWICE. TWICE! UNBELIEVABLE! They voted for someone with conservative values and who they were comfortable having a beer with--and he's now the butt of jokes and disrespected by international leaders. People are sick and tired of the right wing evangelicals hijacking and dividing this country by taking their extremist stands on social issues and forcing them on the rest of us. Not this time Mitt, not this time.
And Sarah Palin. The fact that she came out of nowhere, and after ONE speech, the Republicans say, "She is one of us!" Yet Barack Obama has been giving speeches for 20 months, gave probably one of the most historic speeches on race in the history of our country, and people are STILL saying, "We still don't know him." Yeah, right.
John Ridley wrote a great blog about the glaring double standards that exist in these campaigns that I have to share. You'll get a kick out of them:
The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage Vol. 2 - The People's Edition
John Ridley
This is the Vol. 2 of The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage. I'm calling this one the People's Edition because you, the people, have obviously been taking AP courses in talking Conservative. I've been slammed with responses. Enough that I can promise you there will be future volumes. Along with some of mine, I've mixed in a few of yours for everybody's linguistic pleasure.
Before we start, I'd like to note that I intimated in Vol. 1 that English is a Latin based language. Hondorf was among a few others who pointed out that English is "primarily German based, yes, but it is really a hybrid of Germanic and Romantic languages . . . by the way, I am a redneck."
Clearly, none of us should judge a neck by its color.
A reminder, we're collecting Palinisms here, and over at That Minority Thing.com. If you've got 'em, send 'em.
Ready? Let's begin!
If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you're a "phoney." Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you're "well loved."
SoyAA says: If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to "get to know you." If you're white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you're "one of us."
If you give your wife a dap on stage, it's actually a "terrorist fist jab." If your daughter licks her palm so that she can slick down your youngest child's hair on national TV it's an "adorable moment." (Seriously, forget about abstinence only, teach these folks some grooming skills).
DTD SAYS: If your pastor rails against inequality in the United States of America, you're an "extremist." If your pastor welcomes a sermon by a member of Jews for Jesus who preaches that the killing of Jews by terrorists is a lesson to Jews that they must convert to Christianity, you're a "fundamentalist."
If you're a black man and you use a scholarship to get into college, then work your way up to being the president of the Harvard Law Review, you're "uppity." If you're a conservative and your parents pay your way to Hawaii Pacific University . . . you only have four more schools to attend over the next five years before you somehow manage to graduate (it might be five more schools over the next five years. No one has yet verified whether or not Palin was actually ever registered at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. But, you know how shady people are who ever attended any kind of school in Hawaii).
SeanOcali says: If you're 18, white, and get a 16 year old girl pregnant "life happens." If you're 18, black, and impregnate a 16 year old girl, you're a "registered sex offender."
If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of "Change," it's just "empty rhetoric." If one week before your party's national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about "Change," that's "red meat."
And your last lesson for the day:
If you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a moderate Republican, if you're female, male, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, bi-racial, multi-ethnic, or GLBT, if you're a Jew, Gentile, Muslim, agnostic or atheist -- "Yes, we can!"
If you're a pitbull with lipstick from Alaska, "Yup, yup!"
Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin invoked the term "community organizing" with utter disdain--indeed, Giuliani laughed and repeated it to the crowd as if to say, "Yeah, can you believe it, community organizing." Do they care that the civil rights movement was the ultimate community organizing? Or the women's movement? Or women's suffrage? Or the American Red Cross? Or the United Way? And it takes RESPONSIBILITY? Oh yeah, it's not that they don't care, THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.
Mitt Romney went on stage and kept on drawing contrasts between LIBERAL values and CONSERVATIVE values and how we need to return to CONSERVATIVE values, and blah blah blah. Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. It is YOUR Conservative party and Conservative values that got us into this mess that we're in now by voting for Bush not ONCE but TWICE. TWICE! UNBELIEVABLE! They voted for someone with conservative values and who they were comfortable having a beer with--and he's now the butt of jokes and disrespected by international leaders. People are sick and tired of the right wing evangelicals hijacking and dividing this country by taking their extremist stands on social issues and forcing them on the rest of us. Not this time Mitt, not this time.
And Sarah Palin. The fact that she came out of nowhere, and after ONE speech, the Republicans say, "She is one of us!" Yet Barack Obama has been giving speeches for 20 months, gave probably one of the most historic speeches on race in the history of our country, and people are STILL saying, "We still don't know him." Yeah, right.
John Ridley wrote a great blog about the glaring double standards that exist in these campaigns that I have to share. You'll get a kick out of them:
The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage Vol. 2 - The People's Edition
John Ridley
This is the Vol. 2 of The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage. I'm calling this one the People's Edition because you, the people, have obviously been taking AP courses in talking Conservative. I've been slammed with responses. Enough that I can promise you there will be future volumes. Along with some of mine, I've mixed in a few of yours for everybody's linguistic pleasure.
Before we start, I'd like to note that I intimated in Vol. 1 that English is a Latin based language. Hondorf was among a few others who pointed out that English is "primarily German based, yes, but it is really a hybrid of Germanic and Romantic languages . . . by the way, I am a redneck."
Clearly, none of us should judge a neck by its color.
A reminder, we're collecting Palinisms here, and over at That Minority Thing.com. If you've got 'em, send 'em.
Ready? Let's begin!
If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you're a "phoney." Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you're "well loved."
SoyAA says: If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to "get to know you." If you're white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you're "one of us."
If you give your wife a dap on stage, it's actually a "terrorist fist jab." If your daughter licks her palm so that she can slick down your youngest child's hair on national TV it's an "adorable moment." (Seriously, forget about abstinence only, teach these folks some grooming skills).
DTD SAYS: If your pastor rails against inequality in the United States of America, you're an "extremist." If your pastor welcomes a sermon by a member of Jews for Jesus who preaches that the killing of Jews by terrorists is a lesson to Jews that they must convert to Christianity, you're a "fundamentalist."
If you're a black man and you use a scholarship to get into college, then work your way up to being the president of the Harvard Law Review, you're "uppity." If you're a conservative and your parents pay your way to Hawaii Pacific University . . . you only have four more schools to attend over the next five years before you somehow manage to graduate (it might be five more schools over the next five years. No one has yet verified whether or not Palin was actually ever registered at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. But, you know how shady people are who ever attended any kind of school in Hawaii).
SeanOcali says: If you're 18, white, and get a 16 year old girl pregnant "life happens." If you're 18, black, and impregnate a 16 year old girl, you're a "registered sex offender."
If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of "Change," it's just "empty rhetoric." If one week before your party's national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about "Change," that's "red meat."
And your last lesson for the day:
If you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a moderate Republican, if you're female, male, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, bi-racial, multi-ethnic, or GLBT, if you're a Jew, Gentile, Muslim, agnostic or atheist -- "Yes, we can!"
If you're a pitbull with lipstick from Alaska, "Yup, yup!"
Friday, September 05, 2008
Sarah Palin amateur hour
I just finished watching a video on MSNBC of Sarah Palin giving a speech in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. She did not have the luxury of a teleprompter while giving her speech. This woman was not only READING her speech, but she was using her finger to follow where she was on the page!!!! WTF? And this is what we want from a Vice-President? If she is so ready, shouldn't she just be able to speak about why she feels John McCain is the best man for the job? I don't recall Joe Biden looking at notes when he was introduced in Springfield. When I saw Senator Obama in Seattle, he spoke for at least an hour at Key Arena and he had NO NOTES. If she is being handed a piece of paper to read, hell, any news reporter could do that! I've done a ton of voice over and acting work--I could do that! Anyone who can read without making a mistake and make it sound halfway decent (which is more than I can say for John McCain) can do that! But Sarah, please, please don't use your finger to keep your place on the page! It looks so, so very elementary school!
It's clear why the McCain campaign isn't allowing Palin to go in front of the press by herself. They are deathly afraid she will say something wrong, not be able to answer questions, make a fool of herself. They know that she knows nothing about foreign policy. They know she is not ready. They are playing games and they know it. The only people who love her are the right-wing evangelicals. Even the mainstream Republicans think she is the biggest risk in political history.
It's clear why the McCain campaign isn't allowing Palin to go in front of the press by herself. They are deathly afraid she will say something wrong, not be able to answer questions, make a fool of herself. They know that she knows nothing about foreign policy. They know she is not ready. They are playing games and they know it. The only people who love her are the right-wing evangelicals. Even the mainstream Republicans think she is the biggest risk in political history.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Obama Arrogant? No, McCain is the Arrogant One
The media narrative now is that Obama is "arrogant" and "presumptuous". He is being compared by the McCain campaign to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton--as a mere celebrity, shallow with nothing of substance inside.
Of course, many of us see the barely veiled meaning in these code words...Obama does not know his place. How dare he go to Berlin and speak as if were president! Who does he think he is? Who is this uppity young black man? HOW DARE HE?!?!
I decided to share one of the best articles I've read about this whole phenomenon. It's by Paul Jenkins and it really lays out what I believe has been going on for the past 18 months--first of all in the primaries and now in the general election in terms of the way Senator Obama has been treated and also how he has been perceived.
Obama Still Does Not Know His Place
Paul Jenkins
When Barack Obama started running for president, he was widely described as arrogant for daring to take on the Clintons after just two years in the Senate, despite the fact that polling at the time showed him to be the only threat to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
Eighteen-months later, we are told by the McCain campaign and its traditional media parrots that Obama is at risk of looking "presumptuous" for his recent trip abroad, even as he has registered a small but significant bounce in the polls upon his return, presumably for doing what most of us expect of a presidential candidate.
The man who slayed Democratic royalty, who has raised more money than any political campaign in US history, drawn record-breaking crowds in the US and abroad, who has been ahead of John McCain since widespread general election polling began four months ago, this man is presumptuous for thinking he has a good shot at becoming president and should therefore get to know his potential counterparts and visit the sites of US military activity?
Most candidates Obama's age will be charged sooner or later with youthful conceit for taking on their elders, no matter how guilty those elders are of mismanaging the country. It happened to some extent to Bill Clinton, and surely to others before him. However, it is hard not to see in the ongoing attitude towards this presidential frontrunner, just three months before the election, something more uncomfortable that is not simply a matter of age, but one of race.
Throughout the primary there was a growing sense of disbelief in the Clinton camp that this young'un (older than Bill was in 1991 when he started running, mind you) really thought he had a shot at this. Bill, in particular, showed little patience for Obama's "fairy tale" campaign, eventually going ballistic because, in his own version of "some of my best friends are," he did not understand that even he, whose office is in Harlem, may be condescending towards African-Americans, and towards this African-American in particular. Perhaps more perniciously, some long-time African-American political and business leaders joined in with some of the worst stereotyping of the campaign, seemingly upset at the upstart who dared to go where most of them had not.
Now McCain is recycling some version of this superciliousness, heavily aided by a traditional media still so easily scared into thinking it is not tough enough on Obama. McCain can hardly hide his rage at this uppity kid who thinks he can hobnob with world leaders just as he does -- who thinks he has more judgment than a septuagenerian war-mongering former prisoner of war. And who sees no reason to wait his turn when barely 1 in 10 Americans think the country is on the right track, thanks to his elders' enlightened leadership. In a weird echo of the Clinton attacks, McCain smirks his way through one sarcastic comment after another, his face twisted in hatred and disbelief. Not only is Obama "presumptuous," he also "doesn't understand." It is never clear what Obama doesn't understand since he actually has not gotten his facts or, so far, his analysis wrong, as opposed to McCain whose errors in fact and in judgment are so numerous as to make one wonder where he has been for the past 20 years (poring over Cold War era reports on Czechoslovakia? Hanging out at the Iraq-Pakistan border? Plotting to bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran?). McCain is the most arrogant of Senators (not a light charge), yet even by his standards the tone he adopts towards Obama is so densely patronizing that here too it is hard to dismiss it as purely a matter of age gap. McCain's joke of an economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, is now also laying it on thick: she is glad that Obama is consulting with experts. This from the woman who nearly ran a Fortune 100 company into the ground and whose candidate knows so little about economic issues after three decades in Congress that Fiorina is reduced to repeating that McCain "has been understanding [economic issues] for months."
That Obama is actually able to listen to facts, absorb them and analyze them should be a good thing. We assume that those skills came in handy throughout his life, not least at Harvard, where he graduated near top of his law school class. This, of course, now makes him an elitist, as he would not be expected by the old DC guard to possess any such competence (charisma perhaps, analytical ability no.) Both McCain (894th out of 899 at Annapolis) and George W. Bush revel in their under-achieving school days, as if this made these scions of hyper-privilege any closer to real people. This tactic clearly succeeded well enough for Bush to be elected president twice, and McCain to be nominated once. But there is a sense that American voters may not be taken in again and that they may actually enjoy as president someone who isn't an inbred moron or a senile fratboy.
Obama's partner in elitism, his wife Michelle, is in extreme tongue-biting mode. This is a shame, but it is inevitable, as she too is under the kind of scrutiny that would make Cindy McCain's face melt back into some approximation of reality. It is widely understood that Obama is more deserving of close examination than McCain because she is more actively involved in her husband's campaign than Cindy is. This of course is a lie: McCain has campaigned extensively for her husband and, were it not for her family fortune and her private jet, he wouldn't even have come close to being nominated. The truth is that Obama is expected to play a certain role: strong, angry, overbearing, and every one of her statements is demeaningly parsed in that light. If every word uttered by McCain were analyzed and reported to fit the stereotype of the rich, spoilt, husband-stealing white woman that she is, all would be fair. But instead, we get adoring glances, little examination of her actual role and an occasional hiccup about Michelle Obama's lack of patriotism.
What angers John McCain and bemuses many traditional observers is how unflappable Barack Obama remains in public, no matter how condescending the attacks. There is little doubt that the thick skin he grew over decades came in handy as he started to run for president. The past 18 months surely were not the first time Obama was baited for being black, for being white, for being Muslim, or for not being from "here," and it must be fascinating, although not unexpected, for him to see these patronizing attitudes resurface at this stage of his life. For the rest of us, what is fascinating is to witness how these old-school mindsets are backfiring on those who hold them, making them look less wise, more prejudiced, less fit to lead and altogether completely unappealing. And to witness that in America in 2008, it is perhaps not a bad thing not to know your place.
Of course, many of us see the barely veiled meaning in these code words...Obama does not know his place. How dare he go to Berlin and speak as if were president! Who does he think he is? Who is this uppity young black man? HOW DARE HE?!?!
I decided to share one of the best articles I've read about this whole phenomenon. It's by Paul Jenkins and it really lays out what I believe has been going on for the past 18 months--first of all in the primaries and now in the general election in terms of the way Senator Obama has been treated and also how he has been perceived.
Obama Still Does Not Know His Place
Paul Jenkins
When Barack Obama started running for president, he was widely described as arrogant for daring to take on the Clintons after just two years in the Senate, despite the fact that polling at the time showed him to be the only threat to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
Eighteen-months later, we are told by the McCain campaign and its traditional media parrots that Obama is at risk of looking "presumptuous" for his recent trip abroad, even as he has registered a small but significant bounce in the polls upon his return, presumably for doing what most of us expect of a presidential candidate.
The man who slayed Democratic royalty, who has raised more money than any political campaign in US history, drawn record-breaking crowds in the US and abroad, who has been ahead of John McCain since widespread general election polling began four months ago, this man is presumptuous for thinking he has a good shot at becoming president and should therefore get to know his potential counterparts and visit the sites of US military activity?
Most candidates Obama's age will be charged sooner or later with youthful conceit for taking on their elders, no matter how guilty those elders are of mismanaging the country. It happened to some extent to Bill Clinton, and surely to others before him. However, it is hard not to see in the ongoing attitude towards this presidential frontrunner, just three months before the election, something more uncomfortable that is not simply a matter of age, but one of race.
Throughout the primary there was a growing sense of disbelief in the Clinton camp that this young'un (older than Bill was in 1991 when he started running, mind you) really thought he had a shot at this. Bill, in particular, showed little patience for Obama's "fairy tale" campaign, eventually going ballistic because, in his own version of "some of my best friends are," he did not understand that even he, whose office is in Harlem, may be condescending towards African-Americans, and towards this African-American in particular. Perhaps more perniciously, some long-time African-American political and business leaders joined in with some of the worst stereotyping of the campaign, seemingly upset at the upstart who dared to go where most of them had not.
Now McCain is recycling some version of this superciliousness, heavily aided by a traditional media still so easily scared into thinking it is not tough enough on Obama. McCain can hardly hide his rage at this uppity kid who thinks he can hobnob with world leaders just as he does -- who thinks he has more judgment than a septuagenerian war-mongering former prisoner of war. And who sees no reason to wait his turn when barely 1 in 10 Americans think the country is on the right track, thanks to his elders' enlightened leadership. In a weird echo of the Clinton attacks, McCain smirks his way through one sarcastic comment after another, his face twisted in hatred and disbelief. Not only is Obama "presumptuous," he also "doesn't understand." It is never clear what Obama doesn't understand since he actually has not gotten his facts or, so far, his analysis wrong, as opposed to McCain whose errors in fact and in judgment are so numerous as to make one wonder where he has been for the past 20 years (poring over Cold War era reports on Czechoslovakia? Hanging out at the Iraq-Pakistan border? Plotting to bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran?). McCain is the most arrogant of Senators (not a light charge), yet even by his standards the tone he adopts towards Obama is so densely patronizing that here too it is hard to dismiss it as purely a matter of age gap. McCain's joke of an economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, is now also laying it on thick: she is glad that Obama is consulting with experts. This from the woman who nearly ran a Fortune 100 company into the ground and whose candidate knows so little about economic issues after three decades in Congress that Fiorina is reduced to repeating that McCain "has been understanding [economic issues] for months."
That Obama is actually able to listen to facts, absorb them and analyze them should be a good thing. We assume that those skills came in handy throughout his life, not least at Harvard, where he graduated near top of his law school class. This, of course, now makes him an elitist, as he would not be expected by the old DC guard to possess any such competence (charisma perhaps, analytical ability no.) Both McCain (894th out of 899 at Annapolis) and George W. Bush revel in their under-achieving school days, as if this made these scions of hyper-privilege any closer to real people. This tactic clearly succeeded well enough for Bush to be elected president twice, and McCain to be nominated once. But there is a sense that American voters may not be taken in again and that they may actually enjoy as president someone who isn't an inbred moron or a senile fratboy.
Obama's partner in elitism, his wife Michelle, is in extreme tongue-biting mode. This is a shame, but it is inevitable, as she too is under the kind of scrutiny that would make Cindy McCain's face melt back into some approximation of reality. It is widely understood that Obama is more deserving of close examination than McCain because she is more actively involved in her husband's campaign than Cindy is. This of course is a lie: McCain has campaigned extensively for her husband and, were it not for her family fortune and her private jet, he wouldn't even have come close to being nominated. The truth is that Obama is expected to play a certain role: strong, angry, overbearing, and every one of her statements is demeaningly parsed in that light. If every word uttered by McCain were analyzed and reported to fit the stereotype of the rich, spoilt, husband-stealing white woman that she is, all would be fair. But instead, we get adoring glances, little examination of her actual role and an occasional hiccup about Michelle Obama's lack of patriotism.
What angers John McCain and bemuses many traditional observers is how unflappable Barack Obama remains in public, no matter how condescending the attacks. There is little doubt that the thick skin he grew over decades came in handy as he started to run for president. The past 18 months surely were not the first time Obama was baited for being black, for being white, for being Muslim, or for not being from "here," and it must be fascinating, although not unexpected, for him to see these patronizing attitudes resurface at this stage of his life. For the rest of us, what is fascinating is to witness how these old-school mindsets are backfiring on those who hold them, making them look less wise, more prejudiced, less fit to lead and altogether completely unappealing. And to witness that in America in 2008, it is perhaps not a bad thing not to know your place.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
A Tale of Two Campaigns
If anyone still thinks McCain is the better candidate for president, then they should take a look at the two campaigns, since the way a candidate runs his presidential campaign is a pretty good indicator of how he would run his first term in office. McCain's campaign is in disarray and has been a topic of conversation among his own party members. In fact, it went bankrupt early on. Contrast that with Obama's campaign, which has run smoothly since it was announced, with Obama at the helm and run by David Axelrod and David Plouffe. It has an impressive operation and has raised an unprecedented amount of money, primarily from small donors.
Read more on Daniel Burrell's blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-burrell/can-america-afford-a-mcca_b_113591.html
Read more on Daniel Burrell's blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-burrell/can-america-afford-a-mcca_b_113591.html
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Recent NY Times Poll on Obama and Race
I just read the NY Times article this morning which talked about Obama and how is candidacy isn't affecting the racial divide between blacks and whites. This doesn't surprise me at all. This divide is deep and has been developing over many generations. It's not something that is going to change overnight with one man's candidacy.
Sometimes I wonder who these pollsters call. When I read at the bottom of the article that the people who were polled were about 1300 white people and 200 black people, I thought to myself, well that's pretty skewed. Also, are these calls just random? And in all those calls, did they not get one Asian person or Hispanic person? As an Asian person, I always feel that these discussions about race always revolve around black and white. In this article, Hispanics were even mentioned as overwhelmingly for Obama. No mention of Asians. Asians voted overwhelmingly for Clinton in California--are they going to stay with Obama or go for McCain?
Included with the article is a graphic illustrating different questions asked of the interviewees about different racial issues. One of the questions is "Do you have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama?" It amazed me that in this poll, only 31% of whites had a favorable opinion and 31% were undecided or had not heard enough! Who were these pollsters interviewing? People who had been under a frickin' rock? They hadn't heard enough? Watch the news! Go on the Internet! Read a magazine! He's on the news everyday! He's been on the news everyday for over a year! I don't really trust these polls because they tend to contact an older population and exclude a younger population whose primary phone is a cell phone. I think if younger people were included in these polls, the results would be much different.
Sometimes I wonder who these pollsters call. When I read at the bottom of the article that the people who were polled were about 1300 white people and 200 black people, I thought to myself, well that's pretty skewed. Also, are these calls just random? And in all those calls, did they not get one Asian person or Hispanic person? As an Asian person, I always feel that these discussions about race always revolve around black and white. In this article, Hispanics were even mentioned as overwhelmingly for Obama. No mention of Asians. Asians voted overwhelmingly for Clinton in California--are they going to stay with Obama or go for McCain?
Included with the article is a graphic illustrating different questions asked of the interviewees about different racial issues. One of the questions is "Do you have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama?" It amazed me that in this poll, only 31% of whites had a favorable opinion and 31% were undecided or had not heard enough! Who were these pollsters interviewing? People who had been under a frickin' rock? They hadn't heard enough? Watch the news! Go on the Internet! Read a magazine! He's on the news everyday! He's been on the news everyday for over a year! I don't really trust these polls because they tend to contact an older population and exclude a younger population whose primary phone is a cell phone. I think if younger people were included in these polls, the results would be much different.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Do Your Research
It never ceases to amaze me how gullible people are.
I can't tell you how many people I have met who are filled with misinformation about Senator Obama. "He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance--he even said so in his book!" Yeah, that's what someone said to me over dinner after a soccer tournament last weekend. She told me she had actually read his book "Dreams From my Father" and that he had said he refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Well, you know, I read that book and I don't ever remember him saying that in his book. Ever. I had a discussion with her about this and she was adamant. Then she mentioned some picture where he was standing with his hands at his side and everyone else had their hands over their hearts. Hmmm, sounded like she had received some email to me.
So I did a simple Google search, and of course, up comes a bunch of pages dispelling the rumor. The picture was NOT about the Pledge of Allegiance. It was taken at an event and it was during the National Anthem, and somehow someone spread an email rumor that Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge, then that morphed into he refused to SAY the pledge, and it went viral. There was NEVER anything written in his book saying this, and he always puts his hand over his heart when he says the Pledge. And he DOES say the Pledge.
But why are people so willing to believe this garbage? Why don't they just do a Google search? Do they believe every email chain letter about every potential computer virus that comes their way and pass it on everyone in their address book? Are they that stupid? Or do they do their research to see if it's a hoax? And if so, then why not do the same thing when they receive this CRAP about Obama?
I truly think it is because they really want a reason not to vote for him, so if they hear something negative about him, they don't want to know the REAL TRUTH. So they don't bother to research it. They just pass on lies without doing research. Which to me is rather despicable.
I find it interesting that I have never received ONE negative email about Barack Obama. I never received the Muslim one, or the Pledge of Allegiance one. I guess people know better than to send me anything like that because I've been known to speak out when I've received any kind of email that smacks of intolerance. Thank goodness, less spam.
If you support Obama, or even if you're just open to seeing what Obama is about, then please don't just take any of these scurrilous rumors about Obama at face value. Do your research. Go to Google and type in a couple of keywords, like "obama pledge of allegiance" or "obama muslim" or whatever else you're concerned about. You'll find the answer you're looking for.
I can't tell you how many people I have met who are filled with misinformation about Senator Obama. "He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance--he even said so in his book!" Yeah, that's what someone said to me over dinner after a soccer tournament last weekend. She told me she had actually read his book "Dreams From my Father" and that he had said he refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Well, you know, I read that book and I don't ever remember him saying that in his book. Ever. I had a discussion with her about this and she was adamant. Then she mentioned some picture where he was standing with his hands at his side and everyone else had their hands over their hearts. Hmmm, sounded like she had received some email to me.
So I did a simple Google search, and of course, up comes a bunch of pages dispelling the rumor. The picture was NOT about the Pledge of Allegiance. It was taken at an event and it was during the National Anthem, and somehow someone spread an email rumor that Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge, then that morphed into he refused to SAY the pledge, and it went viral. There was NEVER anything written in his book saying this, and he always puts his hand over his heart when he says the Pledge. And he DOES say the Pledge.
But why are people so willing to believe this garbage? Why don't they just do a Google search? Do they believe every email chain letter about every potential computer virus that comes their way and pass it on everyone in their address book? Are they that stupid? Or do they do their research to see if it's a hoax? And if so, then why not do the same thing when they receive this CRAP about Obama?
I truly think it is because they really want a reason not to vote for him, so if they hear something negative about him, they don't want to know the REAL TRUTH. So they don't bother to research it. They just pass on lies without doing research. Which to me is rather despicable.
I find it interesting that I have never received ONE negative email about Barack Obama. I never received the Muslim one, or the Pledge of Allegiance one. I guess people know better than to send me anything like that because I've been known to speak out when I've received any kind of email that smacks of intolerance. Thank goodness, less spam.
If you support Obama, or even if you're just open to seeing what Obama is about, then please don't just take any of these scurrilous rumors about Obama at face value. Do your research. Go to Google and type in a couple of keywords, like "obama pledge of allegiance" or "obama muslim" or whatever else you're concerned about. You'll find the answer you're looking for.
Friday, June 06, 2008
An Open Letter to Hillary Supporters
The primary season is now over. Senator Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. It has been a long 17 months, but Obama has won fair and square. I know that many of you are very, very angry about this. But the fact of the matter is that this is a democracy, and the people have spoken.
Some of you are so angry that you have threatened to write in Hillary Clinton's name in November or to vote for John McCain. This really amazes me. How many of you have been lifelong Democrats? How many of you want our troops out of Iraq? How many of you are pro-choice? How many of you care about social justice? Or about universal health care? You do realize, don't you, that Clinton's stance on the issues are almost identical to Obama's? Is it more important for you to be angry? Or is it more important for you to have a country that starts heading in the right direction? Because with John McCain as president, our country surely will not be heading in the right direction.
John McCain has vowed to overturn Roe v Wade. He wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. He is against universal health care. He is supported by lobbyists. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but your candidate will be coming out this Saturday to endorse Obama, and it's time you jumped on the bandwagon. We need a unified party in order to get the Republicans out of the White House, and your anger is not going to help. In fact, your anger will only hurt the party if you end up voting for McCain.
I was a huge Clinton supporter before Barack Obama came around. I truly think he was just the better candidate. This had nothing to do with sexism--as I would love to have a woman president. But Obama ran a truly spectacular campaign and he was a truly spectacular candidate. And Clinton made many, many mistakes in her campaign. This primary was hers to lose, and she lost it.
I hope you think long and hard and get over your anger before going to the voting booth in November.
Some of you are so angry that you have threatened to write in Hillary Clinton's name in November or to vote for John McCain. This really amazes me. How many of you have been lifelong Democrats? How many of you want our troops out of Iraq? How many of you are pro-choice? How many of you care about social justice? Or about universal health care? You do realize, don't you, that Clinton's stance on the issues are almost identical to Obama's? Is it more important for you to be angry? Or is it more important for you to have a country that starts heading in the right direction? Because with John McCain as president, our country surely will not be heading in the right direction.
John McCain has vowed to overturn Roe v Wade. He wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. He is against universal health care. He is supported by lobbyists. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but your candidate will be coming out this Saturday to endorse Obama, and it's time you jumped on the bandwagon. We need a unified party in order to get the Republicans out of the White House, and your anger is not going to help. In fact, your anger will only hurt the party if you end up voting for McCain.
I was a huge Clinton supporter before Barack Obama came around. I truly think he was just the better candidate. This had nothing to do with sexism--as I would love to have a woman president. But Obama ran a truly spectacular campaign and he was a truly spectacular candidate. And Clinton made many, many mistakes in her campaign. This primary was hers to lose, and she lost it.
I hope you think long and hard and get over your anger before going to the voting booth in November.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
"Yes We Can" Bracelets
I have been so inspired by Barack Obama that I've decided to create these "Yes We Can" bracelets. Each are one of a kind, hand made of glass or wood beads. I'm selling them as a fundraiser. Here is just a small sampling of the bracelets:
I am selling them for $7 each. If you are interested in buying one, please email me at megacious@comcast.net.
I am selling them for $7 each. If you are interested in buying one, please email me at megacious@comcast.net.
Monday, May 12, 2008
A Unified Democratic Party
As the Democratic Primaries wind down, I am more and more certain that our party will become unified. Senator Clinton has backed off from the negative attacks that have been so divisive for the party. More attention is now being paid to McCain, and his flaws are showing. Our economy is a mess, and gas prices are ridiculous, which portends well for Democrats, since no one wants an extension of Bush's failed economic policy.
Barack Obama has had a consistent message throughout his entire campaign, and was shown to be more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton. This was really illustrated in the holiday gas tax proposal, which both Clinton and McCain pushed. Obama called them out on it, saying it was a gimmick, which it was. And people listened. This showed that people viewed Clinton as a flawed messenger, and were willing to listen to Obama and get beyond the politics of yesterday, where candidates would say anything just to get votes.
I believe that people will come around. The economy is what is affecting most voters in our country today, and John McCain admitted that he didn't know as much about the economy as he should. It was shocking that he would admit something like that, given the fact he's been in the Senate for decades. It's certainly a huge advantage that Obama has over McCain. I believe our economic issues hugely overshadow our national security issues, and even in that arena, most Americans want to get out of Iraq, so McCain isn't exactly on the popular side of that issue either.
Go Obama '08!!!!!!!
Barack Obama has had a consistent message throughout his entire campaign, and was shown to be more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton. This was really illustrated in the holiday gas tax proposal, which both Clinton and McCain pushed. Obama called them out on it, saying it was a gimmick, which it was. And people listened. This showed that people viewed Clinton as a flawed messenger, and were willing to listen to Obama and get beyond the politics of yesterday, where candidates would say anything just to get votes.
I believe that people will come around. The economy is what is affecting most voters in our country today, and John McCain admitted that he didn't know as much about the economy as he should. It was shocking that he would admit something like that, given the fact he's been in the Senate for decades. It's certainly a huge advantage that Obama has over McCain. I believe our economic issues hugely overshadow our national security issues, and even in that arena, most Americans want to get out of Iraq, so McCain isn't exactly on the popular side of that issue either.
Go Obama '08!!!!!!!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Elect Meg Tapucol-Provo National Obama Delegate Congressional District 9!
Never in a million years would I have thought I'd be running for National Delegate. But I'd like to share with you my story, something I didn't have room to share in the limited space I have on my campaign brochure, which is perhaps how you came to this blog.
"We must become the change we wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
Just as Hillary Clinton has claimed Barack Obama to be short on experience in the national political arena, some may say I have not been part of the political process for very long. I have not been. I was only recently inspired to become active politically because of Barack Obama. He inspired me to volunteer for his campaign, and I am now a Precinct Committee Officer. I volunteered at the Legislative District Caucus and plan to volunteer at the 9th Congressional District Caucus. I plan to campaign hard for Senator Obama, attend the State Convention in Spokane, and hopefully go to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. However, like Obama, I am certainly not short on experience. I've been a lifelong Democrat, and strongly believe in the core principles of the Democratic Party, particularly regarding civil rights and social justice. So I've devoted the last 17 years of my life to addressing these issues head on. Indeed, it has been my life's work.
This year marked the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Sadly, our country has a long way to go when it comes to the area of race relations. It's a wonderful thing that we have our first viable African-American candidate. But we all see the ugliness surrounding this election as well, and all of the subtle and not so subtle race-baiting that has taken place to play on people's racial prejudices. It pains me to know that there are still people in this country that will not even listen to Senator Obama's message of hope or his stance on the issues because they only see the color of his skin and have decided they will not vote for him. It's bigotry, plain and simple.
I first started working in the early 90's in the diversity arena as an actor touring with a diversity theatre company called the Growth and Prevention (GAP) Theatre Company. Our group traveled throughout Washington and Oregon and as far as Idaho and Reno, performing musicals about racism and facilitating discussions about race with the audiences afterwards. We performed primarily at schools, but sometimes we performed for non-profit organizations. This was back in the early '90s. It was a great experience. What struck me was that many of the kids we talked to felt as if they themselves were open-minded, but they felt that their parents were not. This was a real source of frustration for them, because they felt as if their parents were unwilling to change their views.
I was inspired by that experience and decided to take it to the next level. In 1993, I began working as a corporate diversity trainer, facilitating workshops throughout the country on diversity-related issues. The difference in corporate diversity training, however, was that the focus was on how diversity and inclusion were good for the bottom line, productivity and morale. Also, the definition of differences tended to be focused on the differences that made a difference at a particular organization (for example, people's accents, their educational levels, the types of jobs they have, etc.) What people discover is regardless of what the difference is, people who feel disenfranchised, marginalized and devalued do not perform at their optimum level. This is difficult work. There were many times that I was the only person of color in the room, sometimes the only woman in the room, and I've experienced the passive aggressive behavior of people sitting in workshops, reading the newspaper or working on their laptops because they don't want to be there, they think talking about diversity is a waste of time. But I keep on doing it, because if someone isn't out there fighting for change, then how do things change? Is everything okay the way it is? Are we happy with the status quo? I'm certainly not.
I also started focusing on diversity within the educational arena. I worked for the Anti-Defamation League A World of Difference Institute where I facilitated prejudice reduction workshops in schools throughout Washington state. In 2003, I joined Green River Community College as an adjunct instructor, where I designed and continue to teach Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias in Education. This is a course for preservice Early Childhood and K-12 teachers that helps them explore diversity in the framework of a classroom. We explore issues of race, class, disability and sexual orientation and how to implement an anti-bias curriculum. This class not only is required for the AA in Early Childhood Education, but is also a prerequisite for the Master's in Teaching Program at the University of Washington. Many of my students have indicated that they felt ALL college students should be required to take this class. Click here for one student's response to my class.
On another note, there was a small detour in the midst of my diversity training career. I really shouldn't call it a small detour, because it was truly life-changing. On December 28, 1998, 45 minutes after the birth of my daughter, I went into cardiac arrest. I had suffered an Amniotic Fluid Embolism, an extremely rare and usually fatal complication of childbirth. Although I was resuscitated after 45 minutes of CPR, I suffered several life-threatening complications, and was in critical condition in a coma and on a ventilator for nine weeks in the Intensive Care Unit at Swedish Medical Center. Thanks to the wonderful care at Swedish, and prayers and support from hundreds of people around the world, I survived, and was released from the hospital after five months and one week. I went through a year-and-a-half of physical, occupational, and speech therapy to relearn how to walk, talk and function, and after five years, returned to work.
During my recovery, I started the Northwest ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) Support Network for survivors of this horrible disease. I co-chaired the 2nd Annual Conference for ARDS Survivors, Families and Care Providers, in conjunction with the American Lung Association of Washington and Harborview Medical Center for ARDS Survivors and Caregivers. During the outbreak of SARS in 2003, I worked with Mimi Gan of Evening Magazine to help increase awareness of ARDS (which was actually what many SARS patients were ultimately dying of). Click here to view the online Evening Magazine story. I continue to support people who are ARDS survivors, or whose loved ones are in ARDS crisis. I have also volunteered and raised money for the American Lung Association of Washington.
I am the Vice-President of the Woodmont K-8 PTA. I was also the only parent on the Federal Way School District Elementary Design Team, where I fought to ensure that an anti-bias curriculum was implemented in the elementary grades.
I, for one, am angry about the past seven years. When the election was stolen from Al Gore, I really felt hopeless--I was so shocked that something like that could have happened. And then John Kerry lost, to someone who clearly was a lesser candidate, and I thought to myself, what is our country coming to? The last seven years have been a horrible nightmare, but I feel that now we have hope, and that hope is Barack Obama!
My support for Senator Obama is unwavering. I have had conversations with countless people, some of them strangers, trying to convince them he is the right candidate. I've joined mybarackobama.com and Asian-Americans for Obama and made many friends. I've volunteered for the Obama campaign, at the 33rd Legislative District Caucus, and plan to volunteer at the Congressional District Caucus. I've become a Precinct Committee Officer and once Obama is nominated (which appears to be just around the corner), I will be very actively campaigning for him, as well as other local candidates who also support him. Once at the convention, I WILL NOT switch my vote. I am for Obama ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!
I am on mybarackobama.com, so if you are too, please send me a friend request!
The following people have endorsed me:
Tina Orwall - Chairwoman, 33rd District Democrats, Candidate for 33rd House Seat
Joan Hudyma Tucker - former director of Northwest Center for Equity and Diversity
Kelly Ogilvie - President and CEO of Blue Marble Energy, former Deputy Director of Outreach for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels
Diana Holz - Director of Early Childhood Education at Green River Community College, Advisory Committee Member on Governor Christine Gregoire's "Washington Learns" Steering Committee
Akemi Matsumoto - Diversity Consultant, Faculty at Bellevue Community College, Seattle-area Social Justice Activist
Melissa Ponder - Seattle-area Civil Rights Activist
Patricia Hunter - Director, Programs and Policy, Alzheimer's Association
My life has been about walking the talk. Having the hard conversations. Talking about issues that people aren't comfortable talking about, because if we never talk about them, nothing changes. If you are a delegate in the 9th Congressional District, please consider casting your vote for me as your representative in Denver!
"We are the ones we've been waiting for." - Hopi prayer"We must become the change we wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
A great Mother's Day!
Today I had a great Mother's Day! Tom, Giancarlo and Karina took me out to brunch on the Argosy Cruise ship--it was fabulous! We had a wonderful brunch while we cruised around Elliott Bay. Also, I received two beautiful handmade cards from Karina and Giancarlo, a tissue-paper flower from Giancarlo, a recipe book that Karina made that contained recipes from her third grade class, a cute white stuffed teddy bear that we've named Puffy, and a Canon A590 Digital Camera from Tom! I had actually mentioned I wanted that for my birthday (which isn't until August), but he surprised me and got it for me today! So we had lots of fun playing with it.
I came home and took a nap, got up and watched the "Meet the Press" netcast (I just can't bring myself to get up at 6:00 AM on Sunday mornings!) and then we went out to dinner at Duke's Chowder House at Kent Station. I had the seafood chop chop salad which was really yummy.
A great day!
I came home and took a nap, got up and watched the "Meet the Press" netcast (I just can't bring myself to get up at 6:00 AM on Sunday mornings!) and then we went out to dinner at Duke's Chowder House at Kent Station. I had the seafood chop chop salad which was really yummy.
A great day!
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Senator Obama is one step closer to the nomination!
After probably the worst couple weeks of Senator Obama's campaign, with the Wright scandal front and center in the headlines, Obama being accused of "elitism" and his loss in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama rebounded with a decisive victory in North Carolina and a performance in Indiana which has virtually ensured his nomination in August.
Senator Clinton needed to win big in Indiana, but only won by two percentage points. It is widely believed that her holiday gas tax proposal, which was opposed by most economists as well as Obama and viewed by him as "pandering" did not help her in either the Indiana or N.C. primary and in fact, may have hurt her.
As usual, the political analysts looked at the exit polls to see how different demographics voted. It is interesting that during this year, race and class have become very important factors in the voting. I cannot recall the analysts talking about "downscale white voters" or the "white working class voters" as much as they do during this election.
I was driving home from the dentist, and I decided to listen to Michael Medved, a conversative radio talk show host, just to see what he had to say about last night's primary results. (It's important to know what your opponents are saying!) Frankly, he disgusted me. He called Obama "dead man walking" and he said that working class whites would NEVER vote for him, that they were Reagan Democrats and they'd all end up voting for McCain in the general election. It sounded like he just KNEW this, and he took it for granted. These are people that were supporters of Hillary Clinton.
If he really feels this is the case, I would really like to know WHY. I know that there is a certain contingent of people who openly admit that they just will not vote for an African-American person, and clearly this is based on racism, pure and simple. I would like to hope that this is a small minority of people. But would there be other reasons why Medved would say working class whites would NEVER vote for Obama? Would they really go against their own best interests and vote for what amounts to a third Bush term? Or is this just right-wing rhetoric? Obama's and Clinton's positions on the issues are much closer to each other's than they are to McCain's when it comes to ecomonic policies, the war, health care, abortion, gay rights, you name it. Clinton herself has said that she would support Obama if he were to be the Democratic nominee. So why would a voter be willing to support Clinton and not Obama, if their own candidate is willing to support Obama? I'd be interested in people's opinions on this.
I think it's important to have these conversations because only then can we come to a greater understanding about people who are different from us. To think that race and class won't be a factor in the general election is to be shortsighted. We've already seen from this primary season that both of these issues have become part and parcel of this campaign season and I have a very strong feeling that in the general election it will get even worse.
Senator Clinton needed to win big in Indiana, but only won by two percentage points. It is widely believed that her holiday gas tax proposal, which was opposed by most economists as well as Obama and viewed by him as "pandering" did not help her in either the Indiana or N.C. primary and in fact, may have hurt her.
As usual, the political analysts looked at the exit polls to see how different demographics voted. It is interesting that during this year, race and class have become very important factors in the voting. I cannot recall the analysts talking about "downscale white voters" or the "white working class voters" as much as they do during this election.
I was driving home from the dentist, and I decided to listen to Michael Medved, a conversative radio talk show host, just to see what he had to say about last night's primary results. (It's important to know what your opponents are saying!) Frankly, he disgusted me. He called Obama "dead man walking" and he said that working class whites would NEVER vote for him, that they were Reagan Democrats and they'd all end up voting for McCain in the general election. It sounded like he just KNEW this, and he took it for granted. These are people that were supporters of Hillary Clinton.
If he really feels this is the case, I would really like to know WHY. I know that there is a certain contingent of people who openly admit that they just will not vote for an African-American person, and clearly this is based on racism, pure and simple. I would like to hope that this is a small minority of people. But would there be other reasons why Medved would say working class whites would NEVER vote for Obama? Would they really go against their own best interests and vote for what amounts to a third Bush term? Or is this just right-wing rhetoric? Obama's and Clinton's positions on the issues are much closer to each other's than they are to McCain's when it comes to ecomonic policies, the war, health care, abortion, gay rights, you name it. Clinton herself has said that she would support Obama if he were to be the Democratic nominee. So why would a voter be willing to support Clinton and not Obama, if their own candidate is willing to support Obama? I'd be interested in people's opinions on this.
I think it's important to have these conversations because only then can we come to a greater understanding about people who are different from us. To think that race and class won't be a factor in the general election is to be shortsighted. We've already seen from this primary season that both of these issues have become part and parcel of this campaign season and I have a very strong feeling that in the general election it will get even worse.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thoughts on being an Obama delegate
I just received an email this morning from Kyle Forar, who is heading up the Obama campaign for the 33rd Legislative District. I am really fired up and ready to go! Never before have I been so excited about the political process. And I am truly impressed by the young people who are still in high school who are actively engaged in this election! I truly believe that it is Barack Obama who has inspired the historic groundswell of participation in the democratic process that we've seen in this election.
Every day I get onto my computer and I log on to msnbc.com and Huffingtonpost to get my political "fix". Yes, I've become a political junkie. I watch video clips of Hardball and Keith Olbermann online. On Sunday morning, I can't wait until the netcast of "Meet the Press". (I won't wake up at 6:00 AM to watch it on TV--I'm not that addicted.)
To be honest though, I do wish the Democratic primary situation would come to an end soon. Obama is clearly ahead in all indicators--contests won, popular vote, pledged delegates. Every day he is gaining a superdelegate, whereas, Hillary has lost superdelegates. The writing is on the wall. The only thing Hillary is hedging her bets on is that the superdelegates overturn the will of the people, and if that happens, it will be a dark day for the Democratic party. It will show that Hillary cares more about herself than about the good of the party.
I actually used to like Hillary Clinton, but there were so many things that she did during this campaign that were so negative that made me lose respect for her. The lies she told about her trip to Bosnia. When she told "60 Minutes" that Obama wasn't Muslim "as far as she knew". The story she told about the pregnant woman who died, which again wasn't true. The fact that she did not renounce Geraldine Ferraro on the spot after Ferraro made racist comments about Obama. The twisting of the facts about Obama in North Carolina. Her twisting of Obama's stance on abortion in New Hampshire. The 3 AM ad. How she said that McCain was more ready to be commander in chief than Obama, yet implied that Obama might be a good VP (that was weird).
Don't even get me started on McCain. Maybe he isn't as conservative as the right-wing wackos would like, but he has a temper on him that would not serve him well as POTUS. It was recently reported that he went on a profane tirade at his wife when she playfully said to him that his hair was starting to thin. Apparently, his face reddened and, in full view of aides and reporters, he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." Read about it here.
And this is who the Republicans want as their president. Scary, Scary, Scary.
Every day I get onto my computer and I log on to msnbc.com and Huffingtonpost to get my political "fix". Yes, I've become a political junkie. I watch video clips of Hardball and Keith Olbermann online. On Sunday morning, I can't wait until the netcast of "Meet the Press". (I won't wake up at 6:00 AM to watch it on TV--I'm not that addicted.)
To be honest though, I do wish the Democratic primary situation would come to an end soon. Obama is clearly ahead in all indicators--contests won, popular vote, pledged delegates. Every day he is gaining a superdelegate, whereas, Hillary has lost superdelegates. The writing is on the wall. The only thing Hillary is hedging her bets on is that the superdelegates overturn the will of the people, and if that happens, it will be a dark day for the Democratic party. It will show that Hillary cares more about herself than about the good of the party.
I actually used to like Hillary Clinton, but there were so many things that she did during this campaign that were so negative that made me lose respect for her. The lies she told about her trip to Bosnia. When she told "60 Minutes" that Obama wasn't Muslim "as far as she knew". The story she told about the pregnant woman who died, which again wasn't true. The fact that she did not renounce Geraldine Ferraro on the spot after Ferraro made racist comments about Obama. The twisting of the facts about Obama in North Carolina. Her twisting of Obama's stance on abortion in New Hampshire. The 3 AM ad. How she said that McCain was more ready to be commander in chief than Obama, yet implied that Obama might be a good VP (that was weird).
Don't even get me started on McCain. Maybe he isn't as conservative as the right-wing wackos would like, but he has a temper on him that would not serve him well as POTUS. It was recently reported that he went on a profane tirade at his wife when she playfully said to him that his hair was starting to thin. Apparently, his face reddened and, in full view of aides and reporters, he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." Read about it here.
And this is who the Republicans want as their president. Scary, Scary, Scary.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
I'm a State Delegate!
Yesterday was the 33rd Legislative District Caucus for the Democratic Party in Washington State. I arrived early at 9:00 AM to help out (and ended up getting an Obama sign and button because I volunteered--woohoo!). I received a short training on how to register the delegates and alternates, then was assigned to the table for the Burien precincts with a woman named Rose. There was a bit of confusion for a while as to whether to hand out index cards. At first we were told to hand them out, then not to, then they changed their minds again. They told us to hand purple index cards out to Hillary delegates, white index cards out to Obama delegates, and then ultimately, it didn't matter when we got into the gym.
I saw several friends there. I sat with my long time friend Vance Bader, who was a delegate from Des Moines. I also saw my friend and former Seattle neighbor, Carla Jones, who is a real estate agent for John L. Scott, and a delegate from Kent. My friend Chitra Solomonson, a physics professor at Green River Community College and fellow Blue Thunder soccer mom was an alternate from Kent who ended up getting seated as a delegate. And new friends and neighbors, Bill Smith and Stephanie Jurado-Smith, delegates from Des Moines were also there.
When I first arrived, I was not intending to run for state delegate. I had heard that you had to actively campaign and network and shmooze, and I thought to myself, this is just like being a politician. I really didn't want to do that, so I decided against it. But when I got there, so many people encouraged me to do it, particularly Stephanie, and when I saw 100 people get up to sign the sheet to make their speech, I thought, okay, why not?
So I was #37. I went up and talked about my life's work battling racism and bigotry as a diversity trainer and as an educator teaching Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias in Education. Apparently it struck a chord in people because my friend Stephanie, who stayed late to help count ballots, called me and told me I was elected! Stephanie is an alternate! So we are headed to the Congressional District Caucuses now and to the State Convention in Spokane!
I saw several friends there. I sat with my long time friend Vance Bader, who was a delegate from Des Moines. I also saw my friend and former Seattle neighbor, Carla Jones, who is a real estate agent for John L. Scott, and a delegate from Kent. My friend Chitra Solomonson, a physics professor at Green River Community College and fellow Blue Thunder soccer mom was an alternate from Kent who ended up getting seated as a delegate. And new friends and neighbors, Bill Smith and Stephanie Jurado-Smith, delegates from Des Moines were also there.
When I first arrived, I was not intending to run for state delegate. I had heard that you had to actively campaign and network and shmooze, and I thought to myself, this is just like being a politician. I really didn't want to do that, so I decided against it. But when I got there, so many people encouraged me to do it, particularly Stephanie, and when I saw 100 people get up to sign the sheet to make their speech, I thought, okay, why not?
So I was #37. I went up and talked about my life's work battling racism and bigotry as a diversity trainer and as an educator teaching Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias in Education. Apparently it struck a chord in people because my friend Stephanie, who stayed late to help count ballots, called me and told me I was elected! Stephanie is an alternate! So we are headed to the Congressional District Caucuses now and to the State Convention in Spokane!
Friday, April 04, 2008
The Hurt of One is the Hurt of All
I just finished reading a post by a former colleague of mine, Patti Digh, who writes an award-winning blog, 37 Days. It's called "Stop doing insignificant work in the world" and it provokes those who are white and straight to ask themselves, would they really want to be treated the way people of color and GLBT people are treated in our society, and if not, what are they going to do about it? Very provocative. Here's the link:
http://37days.typepad.com/37days/2008/02/stop-hate.html
I think this is so appropriate, given the fact that today is the 40th anniversary of the assasination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We have so far to go when it comes to racism and homophobia. Yes, we've come a long way, but we're not there yet.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been to social events, and people use gayness as the punch line. Do people not stop to think that maybe the people sitting in the room have gay friends, or gay siblings?
I've gone to social events where people go on and on about "illegals", as if they're some sort of enemy. Yes, these are parties where I'm the only person of color and I'm not sure if I'm the only progressive there, so I don't say anything. But it's very uncomfortable.
I've gone to parties where the hostess, perhaps not through ill intent but rather through ignorance, made comments like, "I can't believe he tried to Jew me down!" or "We didn't have a Chinaman's chance!" Once I ignored it and felt awful for doing so. Another time I confronted the person who made the offending remark, and the tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
When Patti talks about doing significant work, how many people really make a point of getting to know people who are different than them? How many people read about people who are different than them? How many people confront others when a racist joke is made? Or a homophobic joke? How many people stand up to racism or homophobia? It is difficult to do, because, as one of my diversity workshop participants put it, you're labeled as "that person". But so what? If none of us stands up to racism and homophobia, how will it ever go away?
Take a look at the presidential candidate you're supporting. How do they do in terms of dealing with racism and homophobia? Not so good? Then maybe it's time to switch your support.
http://37days.typepad.com/37days/2008/02/stop-hate.html
I think this is so appropriate, given the fact that today is the 40th anniversary of the assasination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We have so far to go when it comes to racism and homophobia. Yes, we've come a long way, but we're not there yet.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been to social events, and people use gayness as the punch line. Do people not stop to think that maybe the people sitting in the room have gay friends, or gay siblings?
I've gone to social events where people go on and on about "illegals", as if they're some sort of enemy. Yes, these are parties where I'm the only person of color and I'm not sure if I'm the only progressive there, so I don't say anything. But it's very uncomfortable.
I've gone to parties where the hostess, perhaps not through ill intent but rather through ignorance, made comments like, "I can't believe he tried to Jew me down!" or "We didn't have a Chinaman's chance!" Once I ignored it and felt awful for doing so. Another time I confronted the person who made the offending remark, and the tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
When Patti talks about doing significant work, how many people really make a point of getting to know people who are different than them? How many people read about people who are different than them? How many people confront others when a racist joke is made? Or a homophobic joke? How many people stand up to racism or homophobia? It is difficult to do, because, as one of my diversity workshop participants put it, you're labeled as "that person". But so what? If none of us stands up to racism and homophobia, how will it ever go away?
Take a look at the presidential candidate you're supporting. How do they do in terms of dealing with racism and homophobia? Not so good? Then maybe it's time to switch your support.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Why I Hate Wal-Mart
I just read a story in today's news that reminded me why I hate Wal-Mart so much. Wal-Mart truly exemplifies corporate greed. How can a company that sells $90 billion in one quarter alone sue an ex-employee for what it paid out to her in health benefits after she suffered irreparable brain damage in a traffic accident?
That's right, you read that correctly. Wal-Mart, the retail giant, successfully sued Debbie Shank, of Jackson, Missouri, who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident. Shank was an employee at Wal-Mart stocking shelves. She decided to buy the health and benefits plan. Eight years ago she was in a traffic accident that robbed her of much of her short-term memory, left her in a wheelchair and in a nursing home.
Two years after the accident. Shank and her husband were awarded $1 million from a lawsuit against the trucking company that was involved in the accident. After legal fees, $417,000 was placed in a trust for Shank's long-term care.
However, Wal-Mart turned around and sued Shank and her husband to recoup the $417,000.
Click here to read the details.
Although what Wal-Mart did was not illegal, it is a public relations disaster. This woman has lost her son in Iraq. Her husband divorced her just so she could maximize the amount of Medicaid she could receive. This woman will never have a job again. She has nothing. Wal-Mart has billions. They have a lot of audacity--to them people are nothing but dollar signs. Every decision they make is about the bottom line. They encourage their employees to go on welfare in order to have health benefits. They make people work off the clock. They discriminate against women. They discriminate against people of color. They engage in human rights and labor violations in Third World countries. They put profits before people. It makes me sick.
I know that there are people who love Wal-Mart, presumably because of the low prices. I don't care how low their prices are--I will never shop there because they treat their people like crap. I don't see myself strictly as a consumer, but also as a citizen, and as a responsible citizen, I cannot support a company that essentially abuses its employees.
I completely agree with what Steve Olson wrote on his blog about Wal-Mart. The couple times I have been inside a Wal-Mart I immediately wanted to turn around and walk out. "Wal-Mart's atmosphere is cheap and crass. Target's atmosphere exudes progress and style." Yes, give me Target any day. Stylish products at a great price.
Another Wal-Mart story:
A friend of mine (who is an activist) was having a birthday party at her home and decided to show the movie "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"--I guess it was just a spur of the moment thing. (By the way, I just found out you can watch the whole movie online here. Anyway, it was a potluck, and there was a couple that had brought a cake from the Wal-Mart Supercenter. Whoops. I guess it was a little uncomfortable.
Hey, I respect people's right to shop wherever they want to shop. And the sad thing is, they do have low prices, and they pay their people so little that I think maybe the only place they CAN shop is Wal-Mart. I just can't stand the place. Everytime I think about it I want to retch.
That's right, you read that correctly. Wal-Mart, the retail giant, successfully sued Debbie Shank, of Jackson, Missouri, who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident. Shank was an employee at Wal-Mart stocking shelves. She decided to buy the health and benefits plan. Eight years ago she was in a traffic accident that robbed her of much of her short-term memory, left her in a wheelchair and in a nursing home.
Two years after the accident. Shank and her husband were awarded $1 million from a lawsuit against the trucking company that was involved in the accident. After legal fees, $417,000 was placed in a trust for Shank's long-term care.
However, Wal-Mart turned around and sued Shank and her husband to recoup the $417,000.
Click here to read the details.
Although what Wal-Mart did was not illegal, it is a public relations disaster. This woman has lost her son in Iraq. Her husband divorced her just so she could maximize the amount of Medicaid she could receive. This woman will never have a job again. She has nothing. Wal-Mart has billions. They have a lot of audacity--to them people are nothing but dollar signs. Every decision they make is about the bottom line. They encourage their employees to go on welfare in order to have health benefits. They make people work off the clock. They discriminate against women. They discriminate against people of color. They engage in human rights and labor violations in Third World countries. They put profits before people. It makes me sick.
I know that there are people who love Wal-Mart, presumably because of the low prices. I don't care how low their prices are--I will never shop there because they treat their people like crap. I don't see myself strictly as a consumer, but also as a citizen, and as a responsible citizen, I cannot support a company that essentially abuses its employees.
I completely agree with what Steve Olson wrote on his blog about Wal-Mart. The couple times I have been inside a Wal-Mart I immediately wanted to turn around and walk out. "Wal-Mart's atmosphere is cheap and crass. Target's atmosphere exudes progress and style." Yes, give me Target any day. Stylish products at a great price.
Another Wal-Mart story:
A friend of mine (who is an activist) was having a birthday party at her home and decided to show the movie "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"--I guess it was just a spur of the moment thing. (By the way, I just found out you can watch the whole movie online here. Anyway, it was a potluck, and there was a couple that had brought a cake from the Wal-Mart Supercenter. Whoops. I guess it was a little uncomfortable.
Hey, I respect people's right to shop wherever they want to shop. And the sad thing is, they do have low prices, and they pay their people so little that I think maybe the only place they CAN shop is Wal-Mart. I just can't stand the place. Everytime I think about it I want to retch.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
John McCain's Free Ride
Why is the media giving John McCain a free ride? During this week alone, John McCain made several gaffes during his trip to the Middle East during which Joe Leibermann had to correct him. He sought an endorsement from a controversial preacher, Reverend Hagee, who has made incendiary remarks about Catholics, gays and women. He compared the Jewish holiday of Purim to Halloween. And a staffer of his was fired for creating an attack video of Barack Obama. Yet where is the 24/7 media outrage? Where are the headlines that we were bombarded with and the pundits weighing in hour after hour, as they were after Rev. Wright's remarks were revealed? If Barack Obama had made this many errors, I guarantee you this would have gotten airplay around the clock.
Dan Abrams of MSNBC pointed out that the media has been playing softball with John McCain and I agree. I think it's patently unfair. If the media is going to investigate every relationship between a candidate and the people they surround them with, they need to do it on both sides. And when a candidate makes a blunder, if they're going to call one candidate out (like FOX News did with Obama's "typical white person" remark, which was taken out of context), then they should be "fair and balanced" and do the same with ALL candidates, which of course they don't.
Dan Abrams of MSNBC pointed out that the media has been playing softball with John McCain and I agree. I think it's patently unfair. If the media is going to investigate every relationship between a candidate and the people they surround them with, they need to do it on both sides. And when a candidate makes a blunder, if they're going to call one candidate out (like FOX News did with Obama's "typical white person" remark, which was taken out of context), then they should be "fair and balanced" and do the same with ALL candidates, which of course they don't.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama's History-making Speech
I was moved beyond words by Barack Obama's speech today. He spoke with honesty and authenticity about the state of race relations in America. He truly has a unique perspective as a biracial man who has lived in virtually every corner of America, and has relatives of every race. He understands the resentments of both black America and white America.
My concern is that will white downscale working-class voters hear his words with open minds? Clearly, Pat Buchanan still couldn't hear the words. While all his colleagues on msnbc GOT IT, he still sounded like a cranky old bigot. And my fear is that there are a lot of cranky old bigots in America.
I just finished reading an article by Tim Wise, who writes a lot about white privilege in America. He actually wrote a lot of things that have been going through my mind. Check it out:
Uh-Obama: Racism, White Voters and the Myth of Color-Blindness
By Tim Wise
March 6, 2008
Here's a sentence I never thought I'd write, at least not as soon as I am now compelled to write it: It may well be the case that the United States is on its way to electing a person of color as President. Make no mistake, I realize the way that any number of factors, racism prominently among them, could derail such a thing from coming to fruition. Indeed, results from the Ohio Democratic primary suggest that an awful lot of white folks, especially rural and working-class whites, are still mightily uncomfortable with voting for such a candidate, at least partly because of race: One-fifth of voters in the state said race was important to their decision, and roughly six in ten of these voted for Hillary Clinton, which totals would then represent her approximate margin of victory over Barack Obama.
But having said all that--and I think anyone who is being honest would have to acknowledge this as factual--we are far closer to the election of a person of color in a Presidential race than probably any of us expected. Obama's meteoric rise, from community organizer, to law professor, to Illinois state senator, to the U.S. Senate, and now, possibly, the highest office in the land, is something that could have been foreseen by few if any just a few years ago. Obama's undeniable charisma, savvy political instincts, passion for his work, and ability to connect with young voters (and not a few older ones as well) is the kind of thing you just don't see all that often. The fact that as a black man (or, as some may prefer, a man of biracial background) he has been able to catapult to the position in which he now finds himself makes the accomplishment even more significant. It does indeed mean something.
But this is where things become considerably more complicated; the point at which one is forced to determine what, exactly, his success means (and doesn't mean) when it comes to the state of race, race relations, and racism in the United States. And it is at this point that so-called mainstream commentary has, once again, dropped the ball.
On the one hand, many a voice has suggested that Obama's success signifies something akin to the end of racism in the U.S., if not entirely, then surely as a potent political or social force. After all, if a black man actually stands a better-than-decent shot at becoming President, then how much of a barrier could racism really be? But of course, the success of individual persons of color, while it certainly suggests that overt bigotry has diminished substantially, hardly speaks to the larger social reality faced by millions of others: a subject to which we will return. Just as sexism no doubt remained an issue in Pakistan, even after Benazir Bhutto became Prime Minister in the 1980s and again in the 90s (or in India or Israel after both nations had female Premiers, or in Great Britain after the election of Margaret Thatcher), so too can racism exist in abundance, in spite of the electoral success of one person of color, even one who could be elevated to the highest office in the world's most powerful nation.
More importantly, to the extent Obama's success has been largely contingent on his studious avoidance of the issue of race--such that he rarely ever mentions discrimination and certainly not in front of white audiences--one has to wonder just how seriously we should take the notion that racism is a thing of the past, at least as supposedly evidenced by his ability to attract white votes? To the extent those whites are rewarding him in large measure for not talking about race, and to the extent they would abandon him in droves were he to begin talking much about racism--for he would be seen at that point as playing the race card, or appealing to "special interests" and suffer the consequences--we should view Obama's success, given what has been required to make it possible, as confirmation of the ongoing salience of race in American life. Were race really something we had moved beyond, whites would be open to hearing a candidate share factual information about housing discrimination, racial profiling, or race-based inequities in health care. But we don't want to be reminded of those things. We prefer to ignore them, and many are glad that Obama has downplayed them too, whether by choice, or necessity.
Erasing Race and Making White Folks Happy
The extent to which Obama's white support has been directly related to his downplaying of race issues simply cannot be overstated, as evidenced by the kinds of things many of these supporters openly admit, possessing no sense of apparent irony or misgiving. So, consider the chant offered by his supporters at a recent rally--and frankly, a chant in which whites appeared to be joining with far greater enthusiasm than folks of color--to the effect that "Race Doesn't Matter, Race Doesn't Matter," a concept so utterly absurd, given the way in which race most certainly still matters to the opportunity structure in this country, that one has to almost wretch at the repeated offering of it. Or consider the statements of support put forth by Obama supporters in a November 2007 Wall Street Journal article, to the effect that Obama makes whites "feel good" about ourselves (presumably by not bothering us with all that race talk), and that Obama, by virtue of his race-averse approach has "emancipated" whites to finally vote for a black candidate (because goodness knows we were previously chained and enslaved to a position of rejectionism). Worst of all, consider the words of one white Obama supporter, an ardent political blogger in Nashville, to the effect that what he likes about the Illinois Senator is that he "doesn't come with the baggage of the civil rights movement." Let it suffice to say that when the civil rights movement--one of the greatest struggles for human liberation in the history of our collective species--can be unashamedly equated with Samsonite, with luggage, with something one should avoid as though it were radioactive (and this coming from a self-described liberal), we are at a very dangerous place as a nation, all celebrations of Obama's cross-racial appeal notwithstanding.
What does it say about the nation's political culture--and what does it suggest about the extent to which we have moved "beyond race"--that candidate Obama, though he surely knows it, has been unable to mention the fact that 2006 saw the largest number of race-based housing discrimination complaints on record, and according to government and private studies, there are between two and three million cases of housing discrimination each year against people of color?
What does it say that he has failed to note with any regularity that according to over a hundred studies, health disparities between whites and blacks are due not merely to health care costs and economic differences between the two groups (a subject he does address) but also due to the provision of discriminatory care by providers, even to blacks with upper incomes, and black experiences with racism itself, which are directly related to hypertension and other maladies?
What does it say that Obama apparently can't bring himself to mention, for fear of likely white backlash, that whites are over seventy percent of drug users, but only about ten percent of persons incarcerated for a drug possession offense, while blacks and Latinos combined are about twenty-five percent of users, but comprise roughly ninety percent of persons locked up for a possession offense?
Why no mention of the massive national study by legal scholars Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen, which found that at least a third of all businesses in the nation engage in substantial discrimination against people of color--hiring such folks at rates that are well below their availability in the local and qualified labor pool, and well below the rates at which they are to be found in non-discriminating companies in the same locales and industries? Indeed, according to the Blumrosen study, at least 1.3 million qualified people of color will face job discrimination in a given year. Or what of the study of temporary agencies in California, which found that white women who are less qualified than their black counterparts, are still three times more likely to be favored in a job search? And what are the odds that he'll be likely to mention, to any significant degree, the recent EEOC report, which notes that in 2007 there was a twelve percent jump in race-based discrimination complaints in the workplace relative to the previous year (almost all of which were filed by persons of color): bringing the number of such complaints to their highest level since 1994?
As Obama talks about change and making the "American Dream" real for all, why is he unable to mention the fact--let alone propose specific remedies for it--that thanks to a history of unequal access to property and the inability to accumulate assets on par with whites, young black couples with college degrees and good incomes still start out at a significant disadvantage (around $20,000) relative to their white counterparts? In fact, the wealth gap between whites and blacks--with the average white family now having about eleven times the net worth of the average black family--continues to grow, even as income gaps for similarly educated families with similar background characteristics have shrunk.
And why such muted discussion about the way that, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, government at all levels and across party lines has engaged in ethnic cleansing in New Orleans, failing to provide rental assistance to the mostly black tenant base for over a year, plotting to tear down 5000 perfectly usable units of public housing, failing to restart the city's public health care infrastructure, and even ordering the Red Cross not to provide relief in the first few days after the city flooded in September 2005, so as to force evacuation and empty out the city? While Obama has spoken much about the failures of the Bush Administration during Katrina, openly discussing the deliberate acts of cruelty that go well beyond incompetence, and which amount to the forced depopulation of New Orleans-area blacks, has been something about which he cannot speak for fear of prompting a backlash from whites, most of whom, according to polls, don't think the events of Katrina have any lessons at all to teach us about race in America.
Surely, that Obama is constrained in his ability to focus any real attention on these matters, suggests that whatever his success may say about America and race, one thing it utterly fails to say is that we have conquered the racial demons that have so long bedeviled us. And to the extent he must remain relatively silent about these issues, lest he find his political ascent headed in a decidedly different direction, it is true, however ironic, that his success actually confirms the salience of white power. If, in order to be elected, a man of color has to pander to white folks, in ways that no white politician would ever have to do to people who were black or brown, then white privilege and white power remain operative realities. Obama's ascent to the Presidency, if it happens, will happen only because he managed to convince enough whites that he was different, and not really black, in the way too many whites continue to think of black people, which according to every opinion survey, is not too positively.
Transcending Blackness, Reinforcing White Racism: The Trouble With Exceptions
Obama's rise has owed almost everything to his ability--and this, again, coming from people who support him and are willing to speak candidly--to "transcend" race, which is really a way of saying, his ability to carve out an exception for himself in the minds of whites. But this notion of Obama "transcending race" (by which we really mean transcending his blackness) is a patently offensive and even racist notion in that it serves to reinforce generally negative feelings about blacks as a whole; feelings that the presence of exceptions cannot cancel out, and which they can even serve to reinforce. To the extent Obama has become the Cliff Huxtable of politics--a black man with whom millions of whites can identity and to whom they can relate--he has leapt one hurdle, only to watch his white co-countrymen and women erect a still higher one in the path of the black masses. If whites view Obama as having transcended his blackness, and if this is why we like him so much, we are saying, in effect, that the millions of blacks who haven't transcended theirs will remain a problem. To praise the transcending of blackness, after all, is to imply that blackness is something negative, something from which one who might otherwise qualify for membership ought to seek escape, and quickly.
Note, never has a white politician been confronted with questions about his or her ability to transcend race, or specifically, their whiteness. And this is true, even as many white politicians continue to pull almost all of their support from whites, and have almost no luck at convincing people of color to vote for them. In the Democratic primaries this year, Obama has regularly received about half the white vote, while Hillary Clinton has managed to pull down only about one-quarter of the black vote, yet the question has always been whether he could transcend race. The only rational conclusion to which this points is, again, that it is not race per se that needs to be overcome, but blackness. Whiteness is not seen as negative, as something to be conquered or transcended. Indeed, whereas blacks are being asked to rise above their racial identity, for whites, the burden is exactly the opposite: the worst thing for a white person is to fail to live up to the ostensibly high standards set by whiteness; it is to be considered white trash, which is to say, to be viewed as someone who has let down whiteness and fallen short of its pinnacle. For blacks, the worst thing it seems (at least in the minds of whites) is to be seen as black, which is no doubt why so many whites think it's a compliment to say things to black folks like, "I don't even think of you as black," not realizing that the subtext of such a comment is that it's a damned good thing they don't, for if they did, the person so thought of would be up the proverbial creek for sure.
In what must prove among the greatest ironies of all time, for Barack Obama to become President, which he well may accomplish, he will have to succeed in convincing a lot of racist white people to vote for him. Without the support of racists he simply can't win. While this may seem counterintuitive--that is, after all, what makes it ironic--it is really inarguable. After all, according to many an opinion survey in the past decade, large numbers of whites (often as high as one-half to three-quarters) harbor at least one negative and racist stereotype about African Americans, whether regarding their intelligence, law-abidingness, work ethic, or value systems. Without the votes of at least some of those whites (and keep in mind, that's how many whites are willing to admit to racist beliefs, which is likely far fewer than actually hold them), Obama's candidacy would be sunk. So long as whites can vote for a black man only to the extent that he doesn't remind them of other black people, it is fair to say that white people remain mired in a racism quite profound. To the extent we view the larger black community in terms far more hostile than those reserved for Obama, Oprah, Tiger, Colin, Condoleezza, Denzel and Bill (meaning Cosby, not Clinton, whose blackness is believed to be authentic only by himself nowadays), whites have proven how creative we can be, and how resourceful, when it comes to the maintenance of racial inequality.
By granting exemptions from blackness, even to those black folks who did not ask for such exemptions (and nothing I have said here should be taken as a critique of Obama himself by the way, for whom I did indeed vote last month), we have taken racism to an entirely new and disturbing level, one that bypasses the old and all-encompassing hostilities of the past, and replaces them with a new, seemingly ecumenical acceptance in the present. But make no mistake, it is an ecumenism that depends upon our being made to feel good, and on our ability to glom onto folks of color who won't challenge our denial let alone our privileges, even if they might like to.
In short, the success of Barack Obama has proven, perhaps more so than any other single thing could, just how powerful race remains in America. His success, far from disproving white power and privilege, confirms it with a vengeance.
My concern is that will white downscale working-class voters hear his words with open minds? Clearly, Pat Buchanan still couldn't hear the words. While all his colleagues on msnbc GOT IT, he still sounded like a cranky old bigot. And my fear is that there are a lot of cranky old bigots in America.
I just finished reading an article by Tim Wise, who writes a lot about white privilege in America. He actually wrote a lot of things that have been going through my mind. Check it out:
Uh-Obama: Racism, White Voters and the Myth of Color-Blindness
By Tim Wise
March 6, 2008
Here's a sentence I never thought I'd write, at least not as soon as I am now compelled to write it: It may well be the case that the United States is on its way to electing a person of color as President. Make no mistake, I realize the way that any number of factors, racism prominently among them, could derail such a thing from coming to fruition. Indeed, results from the Ohio Democratic primary suggest that an awful lot of white folks, especially rural and working-class whites, are still mightily uncomfortable with voting for such a candidate, at least partly because of race: One-fifth of voters in the state said race was important to their decision, and roughly six in ten of these voted for Hillary Clinton, which totals would then represent her approximate margin of victory over Barack Obama.
But having said all that--and I think anyone who is being honest would have to acknowledge this as factual--we are far closer to the election of a person of color in a Presidential race than probably any of us expected. Obama's meteoric rise, from community organizer, to law professor, to Illinois state senator, to the U.S. Senate, and now, possibly, the highest office in the land, is something that could have been foreseen by few if any just a few years ago. Obama's undeniable charisma, savvy political instincts, passion for his work, and ability to connect with young voters (and not a few older ones as well) is the kind of thing you just don't see all that often. The fact that as a black man (or, as some may prefer, a man of biracial background) he has been able to catapult to the position in which he now finds himself makes the accomplishment even more significant. It does indeed mean something.
But this is where things become considerably more complicated; the point at which one is forced to determine what, exactly, his success means (and doesn't mean) when it comes to the state of race, race relations, and racism in the United States. And it is at this point that so-called mainstream commentary has, once again, dropped the ball.
On the one hand, many a voice has suggested that Obama's success signifies something akin to the end of racism in the U.S., if not entirely, then surely as a potent political or social force. After all, if a black man actually stands a better-than-decent shot at becoming President, then how much of a barrier could racism really be? But of course, the success of individual persons of color, while it certainly suggests that overt bigotry has diminished substantially, hardly speaks to the larger social reality faced by millions of others: a subject to which we will return. Just as sexism no doubt remained an issue in Pakistan, even after Benazir Bhutto became Prime Minister in the 1980s and again in the 90s (or in India or Israel after both nations had female Premiers, or in Great Britain after the election of Margaret Thatcher), so too can racism exist in abundance, in spite of the electoral success of one person of color, even one who could be elevated to the highest office in the world's most powerful nation.
More importantly, to the extent Obama's success has been largely contingent on his studious avoidance of the issue of race--such that he rarely ever mentions discrimination and certainly not in front of white audiences--one has to wonder just how seriously we should take the notion that racism is a thing of the past, at least as supposedly evidenced by his ability to attract white votes? To the extent those whites are rewarding him in large measure for not talking about race, and to the extent they would abandon him in droves were he to begin talking much about racism--for he would be seen at that point as playing the race card, or appealing to "special interests" and suffer the consequences--we should view Obama's success, given what has been required to make it possible, as confirmation of the ongoing salience of race in American life. Were race really something we had moved beyond, whites would be open to hearing a candidate share factual information about housing discrimination, racial profiling, or race-based inequities in health care. But we don't want to be reminded of those things. We prefer to ignore them, and many are glad that Obama has downplayed them too, whether by choice, or necessity.
Erasing Race and Making White Folks Happy
The extent to which Obama's white support has been directly related to his downplaying of race issues simply cannot be overstated, as evidenced by the kinds of things many of these supporters openly admit, possessing no sense of apparent irony or misgiving. So, consider the chant offered by his supporters at a recent rally--and frankly, a chant in which whites appeared to be joining with far greater enthusiasm than folks of color--to the effect that "Race Doesn't Matter, Race Doesn't Matter," a concept so utterly absurd, given the way in which race most certainly still matters to the opportunity structure in this country, that one has to almost wretch at the repeated offering of it. Or consider the statements of support put forth by Obama supporters in a November 2007 Wall Street Journal article, to the effect that Obama makes whites "feel good" about ourselves (presumably by not bothering us with all that race talk), and that Obama, by virtue of his race-averse approach has "emancipated" whites to finally vote for a black candidate (because goodness knows we were previously chained and enslaved to a position of rejectionism). Worst of all, consider the words of one white Obama supporter, an ardent political blogger in Nashville, to the effect that what he likes about the Illinois Senator is that he "doesn't come with the baggage of the civil rights movement." Let it suffice to say that when the civil rights movement--one of the greatest struggles for human liberation in the history of our collective species--can be unashamedly equated with Samsonite, with luggage, with something one should avoid as though it were radioactive (and this coming from a self-described liberal), we are at a very dangerous place as a nation, all celebrations of Obama's cross-racial appeal notwithstanding.
What does it say about the nation's political culture--and what does it suggest about the extent to which we have moved "beyond race"--that candidate Obama, though he surely knows it, has been unable to mention the fact that 2006 saw the largest number of race-based housing discrimination complaints on record, and according to government and private studies, there are between two and three million cases of housing discrimination each year against people of color?
What does it say that he has failed to note with any regularity that according to over a hundred studies, health disparities between whites and blacks are due not merely to health care costs and economic differences between the two groups (a subject he does address) but also due to the provision of discriminatory care by providers, even to blacks with upper incomes, and black experiences with racism itself, which are directly related to hypertension and other maladies?
What does it say that Obama apparently can't bring himself to mention, for fear of likely white backlash, that whites are over seventy percent of drug users, but only about ten percent of persons incarcerated for a drug possession offense, while blacks and Latinos combined are about twenty-five percent of users, but comprise roughly ninety percent of persons locked up for a possession offense?
Why no mention of the massive national study by legal scholars Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen, which found that at least a third of all businesses in the nation engage in substantial discrimination against people of color--hiring such folks at rates that are well below their availability in the local and qualified labor pool, and well below the rates at which they are to be found in non-discriminating companies in the same locales and industries? Indeed, according to the Blumrosen study, at least 1.3 million qualified people of color will face job discrimination in a given year. Or what of the study of temporary agencies in California, which found that white women who are less qualified than their black counterparts, are still three times more likely to be favored in a job search? And what are the odds that he'll be likely to mention, to any significant degree, the recent EEOC report, which notes that in 2007 there was a twelve percent jump in race-based discrimination complaints in the workplace relative to the previous year (almost all of which were filed by persons of color): bringing the number of such complaints to their highest level since 1994?
As Obama talks about change and making the "American Dream" real for all, why is he unable to mention the fact--let alone propose specific remedies for it--that thanks to a history of unequal access to property and the inability to accumulate assets on par with whites, young black couples with college degrees and good incomes still start out at a significant disadvantage (around $20,000) relative to their white counterparts? In fact, the wealth gap between whites and blacks--with the average white family now having about eleven times the net worth of the average black family--continues to grow, even as income gaps for similarly educated families with similar background characteristics have shrunk.
And why such muted discussion about the way that, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, government at all levels and across party lines has engaged in ethnic cleansing in New Orleans, failing to provide rental assistance to the mostly black tenant base for over a year, plotting to tear down 5000 perfectly usable units of public housing, failing to restart the city's public health care infrastructure, and even ordering the Red Cross not to provide relief in the first few days after the city flooded in September 2005, so as to force evacuation and empty out the city? While Obama has spoken much about the failures of the Bush Administration during Katrina, openly discussing the deliberate acts of cruelty that go well beyond incompetence, and which amount to the forced depopulation of New Orleans-area blacks, has been something about which he cannot speak for fear of prompting a backlash from whites, most of whom, according to polls, don't think the events of Katrina have any lessons at all to teach us about race in America.
Surely, that Obama is constrained in his ability to focus any real attention on these matters, suggests that whatever his success may say about America and race, one thing it utterly fails to say is that we have conquered the racial demons that have so long bedeviled us. And to the extent he must remain relatively silent about these issues, lest he find his political ascent headed in a decidedly different direction, it is true, however ironic, that his success actually confirms the salience of white power. If, in order to be elected, a man of color has to pander to white folks, in ways that no white politician would ever have to do to people who were black or brown, then white privilege and white power remain operative realities. Obama's ascent to the Presidency, if it happens, will happen only because he managed to convince enough whites that he was different, and not really black, in the way too many whites continue to think of black people, which according to every opinion survey, is not too positively.
Transcending Blackness, Reinforcing White Racism: The Trouble With Exceptions
Obama's rise has owed almost everything to his ability--and this, again, coming from people who support him and are willing to speak candidly--to "transcend" race, which is really a way of saying, his ability to carve out an exception for himself in the minds of whites. But this notion of Obama "transcending race" (by which we really mean transcending his blackness) is a patently offensive and even racist notion in that it serves to reinforce generally negative feelings about blacks as a whole; feelings that the presence of exceptions cannot cancel out, and which they can even serve to reinforce. To the extent Obama has become the Cliff Huxtable of politics--a black man with whom millions of whites can identity and to whom they can relate--he has leapt one hurdle, only to watch his white co-countrymen and women erect a still higher one in the path of the black masses. If whites view Obama as having transcended his blackness, and if this is why we like him so much, we are saying, in effect, that the millions of blacks who haven't transcended theirs will remain a problem. To praise the transcending of blackness, after all, is to imply that blackness is something negative, something from which one who might otherwise qualify for membership ought to seek escape, and quickly.
Note, never has a white politician been confronted with questions about his or her ability to transcend race, or specifically, their whiteness. And this is true, even as many white politicians continue to pull almost all of their support from whites, and have almost no luck at convincing people of color to vote for them. In the Democratic primaries this year, Obama has regularly received about half the white vote, while Hillary Clinton has managed to pull down only about one-quarter of the black vote, yet the question has always been whether he could transcend race. The only rational conclusion to which this points is, again, that it is not race per se that needs to be overcome, but blackness. Whiteness is not seen as negative, as something to be conquered or transcended. Indeed, whereas blacks are being asked to rise above their racial identity, for whites, the burden is exactly the opposite: the worst thing for a white person is to fail to live up to the ostensibly high standards set by whiteness; it is to be considered white trash, which is to say, to be viewed as someone who has let down whiteness and fallen short of its pinnacle. For blacks, the worst thing it seems (at least in the minds of whites) is to be seen as black, which is no doubt why so many whites think it's a compliment to say things to black folks like, "I don't even think of you as black," not realizing that the subtext of such a comment is that it's a damned good thing they don't, for if they did, the person so thought of would be up the proverbial creek for sure.
In what must prove among the greatest ironies of all time, for Barack Obama to become President, which he well may accomplish, he will have to succeed in convincing a lot of racist white people to vote for him. Without the support of racists he simply can't win. While this may seem counterintuitive--that is, after all, what makes it ironic--it is really inarguable. After all, according to many an opinion survey in the past decade, large numbers of whites (often as high as one-half to three-quarters) harbor at least one negative and racist stereotype about African Americans, whether regarding their intelligence, law-abidingness, work ethic, or value systems. Without the votes of at least some of those whites (and keep in mind, that's how many whites are willing to admit to racist beliefs, which is likely far fewer than actually hold them), Obama's candidacy would be sunk. So long as whites can vote for a black man only to the extent that he doesn't remind them of other black people, it is fair to say that white people remain mired in a racism quite profound. To the extent we view the larger black community in terms far more hostile than those reserved for Obama, Oprah, Tiger, Colin, Condoleezza, Denzel and Bill (meaning Cosby, not Clinton, whose blackness is believed to be authentic only by himself nowadays), whites have proven how creative we can be, and how resourceful, when it comes to the maintenance of racial inequality.
By granting exemptions from blackness, even to those black folks who did not ask for such exemptions (and nothing I have said here should be taken as a critique of Obama himself by the way, for whom I did indeed vote last month), we have taken racism to an entirely new and disturbing level, one that bypasses the old and all-encompassing hostilities of the past, and replaces them with a new, seemingly ecumenical acceptance in the present. But make no mistake, it is an ecumenism that depends upon our being made to feel good, and on our ability to glom onto folks of color who won't challenge our denial let alone our privileges, even if they might like to.
In short, the success of Barack Obama has proven, perhaps more so than any other single thing could, just how powerful race remains in America. His success, far from disproving white power and privilege, confirms it with a vengeance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)