While Ashleigh Moore may not be getting much in the way of national coverage, her story is making the rounds of the blogs. Hesiod at Counterspin Central asks a very poignant question:
Will Ashleigh's parents have to create an "Ebony Alert?"I hope not.
UPDATE: In a positive development on covering the story, the Washington Times has run a story about Ashleigh's disapperance - the first I've found outside the Georgia media thus far.
Last summer, when Elizabeth Smart first disappeared, questions were raised about what made her case more "special" or more "newsworth" than a similar case in Milwaulkee, where a young black girl named Alexis Patterson had gone missing - but who was getting far less attention than Elizabeth's. The most obvious differences in the cases were race and economic status - Elizabeth was from a white, middle-class family, while Alexis was from a poorer, black family.
Questions are now being raised again about the effect of race on determining what makes a missing child case a nationwide story or not. Over a week ago, 12-year-old Ashleigh Moore disappeared from her home. Her mother's boyfriend was the last person to see her, and there is a possiblity that the police have found blood in the boyfriend's car, though police won't release any further information. As of the time of this posting, a search at Google News shows that the only stories mentioning Ashleigh's name are from Georgia newspapers and TV stations. No non-local sources have picked up on the story.
Even in the area where Ashleigh lived and disappeared, people are questioning how much of an impact her race is having on the public's perception of the case and the amount of interest (or lack thereof) it's getting.
"It really bothers that there isn't more community here," said Donna Torres. Torres and her 13-year-old son Daniel also have attended a weekend candlelight vigil and search for Ashleigh. "If this were a white kid, there would be a whole lot of people out here."Obviously, not ever single missing-child case can have the level of coverage that Elizabeth Smart's got, nor can every potential crime have the kind of exposure that Laci Peterson's (a white, middle-class woman, by the way) received. The problem is when it seems that the only cases that do get such intensive attention from the national media are those involving white, middle-class women and girls. One would think that - at least occasionally - the disappearance of a black woman or girl would rate significant coverage.
One bit of good news in all of this is that now 41 states have adopted the Amber Alert program to help get word out as quickly as possible about missing children, and George Bush is signing a national Amber Alert bill into law today. In addition to establishing a nation-wide Amber Alert, the law will increase penalties for child kidnapping, require live in prison for some repeat child sex offenders and strengthens laws regarding child porongraphy.
Today, nearly a year after her disapperance, Alexis Patterson is still missing, and her case still receives little coverage outside it's local area. Ashleigh Moore has been missing for 9 days, and her story has yet to break on the national news scene. When the next missing-child story breaks, odds are it will once again be a white, middle- or upper-class child. It's happened too often for it to be a "coincidence" that the cases of black children don't get the same kind of coverage.
We like to pretend that the US has made significant strides in combating racism, and, admittedly, we have come quite a ways. But when we can't seem to work up as much interest in the case of missing black kids as we do for missing white kids, it's obvious we still have a very long ways to go.
This entry started as a tangent to the previous one about Ari Fleischer's comment on behalf of the President in regards to Rick Santorum's statement, and touches on issues I've raised before - but I felt it deserved an entry all it's own.
While the gay-rights's issue raised by the court case Santorum was commenting on (which challenges a Texas law that makes gay sodomy illegal, while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal - a law apparently passed during the same year the state rescinded a law that had made private beastiality illegal - meaning that it's ok for someone to have sex with an animal in private, but not ok for two men or two women to do so) are important, the substance of Santorum's comments went beyond even that.
In the interview, Santorum blamed the problem of priests molesting children on the growing tolerance for homosexuality. It is hard for me to express just how offensive this idea is. Priests do not molest boys because Americans find homosexuality less objectionable than before. Many of the molestations that are being reported now occured many years ago, before homosexuality was nearly as well "tolerated" as it is today (if it's status today can even be called "tolerated").
Sexual molestations - be it a man molesting a boy or a girl, or a woman doing the molesting - has little to do with sex in and of itself. It's an issue of power, just as any rape is. The desire for power may manifest itself in a sexual way, but the issue is still power.
For our President - though whatever method - to be sending a message of support for a man who believes that priests (or anyone else, for that matter) molesting teens are engaged in a "normal homosexual relationship" is inexcusable. Would either Senator Santorum or President Bush consider an adult molesting a teenaged girl a "normal heterosexual relationship"? If so, shouldn't we then just do away with statuatory rape laws? Somehow, I doubt either man would be in support of that.
I have never understood how people can get the idea that somehow kids - even teens - who are molested are in any way consenting to the abuse. Adults, and, in particular, adults who hold any kind of a position of authoritiy, such as teachers, parents, clergy, coaches and law-enforcement personnel, are also people who kids want to please - and they will often to go any lengths in order to ensure that they are pleased, even if it means doing things they don't want to do or feel that they should be doing. In no way does their "giving in" imply actual consent. The adult has the power in the relationship, and has the reponsiblity to be looking out for the child's best interest. Any harm that comes to that child through the adult's actions is the sole responsiblity of that adult.
While Santorum's comments about homosexuality in general are offensive enough, it is this assertion about priestly molestations that needs to become the focus of the outrage. Blogs may not yet have a huge amount of influence on what gets covered in the mainstream media, but as the situation with Trent Lott showed, if some enough of a hubbub can be raised in the blogosphere, and if some of those higher up in the blogging food chain would start covering that aspect of the story more, it very well might break out into the mainstream media, and questions can be raised about why the President would give his support to a man who says that priests molesting teens are just engaging in a "normal homosexual relationship". There's nothing normal about it - its quite simply a crime.
Busy, Busy, Busy raises some interesting questions regarding the widely circulated statement of support that Ari Fleischer reportedly passed on to the press regarding Senator Rick Santorum:
"The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes," Fleischer said.Busy, Busy, Busy notes:
So just how did Ari Fleischer issue these widely quoted remarks? According to the White House web site, Fleischer published one statement Friday, and it made no mention of Santorum. His only interactive session with the press that day was a briefing, the transcript of which does not include the quotes at issue either, but does contain this exchange:No clear answers are forthcoming at the moment, but it is an question worth asking. Atrios at Eschaton has reported that the GOP has essentially issued a gag order, telling even those who support Santorum's statements to let him speak for himself. And what a job he's doing of that.Q: Ari, both Senator Frist and Senator Specter have publicly supported Senator Santorum. And my question: Does the President believe they were wrong to do so, because while governor of Texas he ever tried to get that state's sodomy law repealed?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I said this morning, Lester, the President has confidence in Senator Santorum, both as a senator, as a member of the Senate leadership.
It appears that Senator Rick Santorum isn't the only one who thinks that the government has the power to regulate what happens in the bedrooms of consenting adults. According to a recent article in Slate magazine, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia seems to agree
"It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private sexual decisions," says Smith [the plaintiff's attorneys]. To which Scalia rejoins, "They may have conceded it, but I haven't."Scalia, like Santorum, also seems to have no problem with gays - as long as they refrain from having gay sex.
Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." See? No problem. Homosexuals remain perfectly at liberty to have heterosexual sex in Texas.Scalia even uses bigamy as a point of comparison in his questioning on the matter:
Then Scalia wonders whether state statutes that criminalize rape or adultery only among opposite sexes are similarly unconstitutional. Smith argues that this is quite different from "giving all people free rein to make sexual decisions except one small group of people." Scalia retorts, "You can put it that way. You can make it sound puritanical. But lots of laws make moral judgments. What about the laws against bigamy?"Worse, Scalia also seems to think that homosexuality is somehow contagious - that it could spread from teacher to student if a gay person happened to get a job teaching school.
Smith explains that the anti-sodomy laws have pernicious secondary effects—keeping gay parents from gaining child visitation or custody or employment, for instance—and Rehnquist wonders whether, if these laws are stuck down, states can have laws "preferring non-homosexuals to homosexuals as kindergarten teachers." Smith replies that there would need to be some showing that gay kindergarten teachers produce harm to children. Scalia offers one: "Only that children might be induced to follow the path to homosexuality."When Charles Rosenthal, the attorney representing the state of Texas, seems to make a wrong turn in his arguments, Scalia seems seriously rattled.
In response to a question from Justice Anthony Kennedy as to whether Bowers is still good law, Rosenthal replies that mores have changed and that "physical homosexual intimacy is now more acceptable." Since he suddenly seems to be arguing the wrong side of the case, an astonished Scalia steps in to say, "You think there is public approval of homosexuality?"Have I mentioned before that Justice Scalia scares me? This is the same Justice who believes that democracy obscures "the divine authority behind government," and that we can tell who God wants to have be our leader, as he will have grabbed his power through some form of battle. Oh, and Scalia's also the one who, when he was recently given an award for free speech banned the broadcast media from covering it.Rosenthal catches his pass, then runs the wrong way down the field: "There is approval of homosexuality. But not of homosexual activity." Scalia wonders how there can be such widespread "approval" if Congress still refuses to add homosexuals to classes of citizens protected by the civil rights laws. "You're saying there's no disapproval of homosexual acts. But you can't ... say that," he sputters.
Remember that Scalia was instrumental in the Supreme Court's decision to halt the recount of votes in Florida, following the 2000 election, and was the author of the opinion that essentially said that no recount should be done because, if the recount showed that George Bush had not actually won the state, it might cause a credibility problem for his administration (ignoring entirely the fact that if George Bush has not actually won the state, he wouldn't have had an administration to have any crediblity to worry about). Many believe that if Chief Justice Renquhist were to retire while Bush is still in office, W will want to make Scalia the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
That would be scary.
As for the Slate article quoted above, you should check it out, if only for the wonderfully surreal conversation near the end about immorality, teaching German, just what Texas thinks of gays in general, and the feasibility of gay politicians in Texas.
This is one of those things that you never know for sure if it's really "true" or someone with a bit of imagination and a good sense of humour, but either way it's rather amusing - and (as Atrios pointed out) Santorum has, in a way, opened himself up to questions like it. I suspect, though, that whether the "original" call is real or not, Santorum's office will be getting more than a few calls along the same line. I don't have much sympathy for Santorum if that's the case, but I do kinda feel sorry for his staff...
At any rate - go read - it's short and it's funny, and we all need a good laugh.
Jack Balkin has an excellent piece that offers an overview to the "Right to Privacy" and a look at how the changing mores of society guide how that right is implemented by the courts. Below is an exceprt, but I highly recommend reading the entire piece. (If the permalink is bloggered go to http://balkin.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to Monday, April 23 and the article titled "Rick Santorum and Homosexuality.)
The right of privacy is always responding to changing notions of what is sexually appropriate and inappropiate. Today most people in the United States (and certainly most young people) think that heterosexual sex between unmarried individuals is permissible. It was not always thus. The sexual revolution changed people's views about the morality of pre-marital sex. That, in turn, changed what people thought the state had a right to regulate. Most people now probably think that it is none of the state's business whether heterosexual couples have sex and whether they wish to live together outside of marriage.The same thing, I would submit, is happening with same-sex relations. When the Supreme Court first considered the issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, homosexuality was only beginning to win widespread social acceptance. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court, filled with people of a much older generation, could not muster five votes to protect the rights of gays and lesbians. What was surprising was that there were already four votes to do so. Now, with Will and Grace one of the top-rated comedies on television, it is quite clear that a very large number of people have changed their views. It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court begins to protect same-sex relations. Whether they will do so through extending the right of privacy or through the use of the equal protection clause is yet to be determined. But they will change constitutional law to accomodate changing social mores. However, since there have been no similar changes in social attitudes about incest or polgyamy, there is no reason to think that courts will protect those practices. As I have said, the reason is not based on logic, but experience, which, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said, is the real source of the life of the law..
Conservative religious groups used to have the upper hand in the debate over gay rights. But now they have seen the writing on the wall. They are, for the most part, resigned to the Supreme Court's overruling or severely limiting Bowers v. Hardwick. Santorum's comments should be understood in this light. He is giving this feature of right wing politics its last hurrah.
More Republicans have joined the call for Senator Rick Santorum to apologize for his recent remarks.
The group, Republican Unity Coalition, includes former president Gerald Ford and Mary Cheney, the daughter of current Vice President Dick Cheney. They describe themselves as a "gay-straight organization dedicated to making homosexuality a non-issue". I really like the way they put that because, really, homosexuality should be a non-issue.
Republican Senators Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) have both issued statements condemning Senator Rick Santorum's comments on sexuality and his contention that there is no right to privacy.
"Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Senator Santorum's unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, according to a statement from her office.This is the second time in recent weeks that Senator Snowe has taken a noticable stand in opposition to her party's policies. Her opposition to President Bush's tax cut proposal even prompted one group, "Club for Growth", to create and ad about her comparing her to the leaders of France who tried to "stand in the way" of Bush's push for the war in Iraq. (In a nice touch of irony, Maine has a large Franco-American population, and there are reports that the ad may have actually helped strengthen support for her.)Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, released a similar statement on Thursday.
"I thought his choice of comparisons was unfortunate and the premise that the right of privacy does not exist -- just plain wrong," he said. "Senator Santorum's views are not held by this Republican and many others in our party."
I hope more Republicans will follow their lead, but I'm not holding my breath. There is pressure from conservative groups such as the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition for Republicans to stand in support with Santorum. So far, most Republicans, including President Bush, have chosen to remain silent on the issue, apparently in hope that it will quickly blow over.
"It is clear that many top GOP leaders cannot bring themselves to offer a spirited defense of marriage for fear of being accused of bigotry by Democrats and their allies among homosexual activists," said a statement from Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council.The Christian Coalition released a statement Thursday, blasting the "liberal organizations and the liberal media" for trying to "foster a jaundiced agenda," and hailing Santorum as a "man of honor."
"Homosexuality clearly is an alternative lifestyle," said Roberta Combs, president of the group. "We stand with and support Senator Santorum."
Arthur Silber at Light of Reason has an interesting post on the Santorum flap. In it he makes a couple of points that I wish I had recognized, because I think that they are very important. First, Santorum seems to be under the impression that the basic "unit" of society is the "stable, healthy family", NOT the individual, and second, that the governments purpose is not to protect the individual but rather to protect society. Both of these concepts fly in the face of what America is supposed to be - a pluralistic society where individuals have freedoms and it is the freedom of the individual that is necessary to protect, not society.
The entirety of the interview, and these last statements in particular, make it unmistakably clear that, for Santorum, the purpose of government is not to protect individual rights, but to protect "strong healthy families," "the basic unit of our society." Note that his idea of "strong healthy families" is one growing out of his particular beliefs, including his religious beliefs; you might have quite a different idea of a "strong healthy family," as might many millions of other people. But beyond this, Santorum could not be more mistaken: "the basic unit of our society" is the individual, not "a healthy, stable, traditional family" or any other "unit" that someone might put forth. The smallest minority is the individual -- and it is the individual's rights that government properly should protect, especially against people with views like Santorum's.When individual rights become subordinate to one particular view of society, we step away from being a free nation and begin to more closely resemble the fundamentalist theocracies that our own government decries on a regular basis. That many of Santorum's views derive from his own particular religoius belief just make the comparison that much more apt.The other element worthy of note is the breathtaking arrogance of this statement: "The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire." Please keep in mind the following: what Santorum is talking about in this interview is sexual activity conducted in private by consenting adults. But Santorum proceeds from what is, in fundamental terms, a collectivist premise: he believes that government properly has the power (or in his terms, the "right") to criminalize behavior which might endanger "strong healthy families," thus in his view endangering society in general. In other words, the purpose of government is to protect "society" (which presumably includes those who thinks as he does, but no one else at all), but not to protect you specifically, or any other individual.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has announced that it is filing a suit against Shippensburg University in Harrisburg, PA, claiming that their Code of Conduct it has adopted to regulate student behaviour violates their right to free speech. Shippensburg, of course, denies that they are doing any such thing. Shippensburg's Code of Conduct, which is typical of colleges nationwide, gives each student a "primary" right to be free from harassment, inimidation, physical harm or emotional abuse, and a "secondary" right to express a personal belief system in a manner that does not "provoke, harass, demean, intimidate or harm" another.
The university also prohibits conduct that "annoys, threatens, or alarms a person or group," like sexual harassment, innuendo, comments, insults, propositions, jokes about sex or gender-specific traits and even "suggestive or insulting sounds," leering, whistling, obscene gestures.
The president of the university, Anthony Ceddia, supplemented the code last month with a policy limiting demonstrations and rallies to two specific "speech zones" on campus. Now, I can understand some of these restrictions. Students should be protected from physical harm, harassment, threats, intimidation or abuse, but since when did anyone have a right to not be "annoyed" or "insulted"? When I remember my own days in college, I honestly can't think of a day that went by in which I wasn't annoyed, insulted, had jokes made at my expense, was the recipient of demeaning comments or subjected to obscene gestures. As unpleasant as it was, I also knew that it was largely late-teens and early-twentysomethings being the general assholes so many people in that age range can be.
Granted, there are points where such behaviour rises to such a level that it needs to be addressed and, in many cases, controlled or regulated through rules and punishment. If it's of sufficient intensity that a reasonable person would find themselves hindered from being able to function as necessary in the learning environment, it's a problem. Other people's prejudices, immaturities and stupidity should not be allowed to interfere with someone's ability to get the education that they went to college for, and if a student is reasonbly in fear for their safety or well-being, there needs to be a mechanism in place that they can take advantage of to solve the problem. But more often than not, things never get that far. Feelings get hurt, people get mad, but no moreso than what happens in everyday life, where you have to face such behaviours without any "code of conduct" to protect you from the cruelty people can show towards each other. Learning how to deal with that should also be a part of a student's education, because you'll certainly need to know how.
FIRE is making this the kickoff of a campaign against overly restrictive codes of conduct at schools around the country. They're planning to file suit against at least one school in each of the 12 federal appellate court districts, and will be posting a database of regulations from schools around the country next month at http://speechcodes.org.
Atrios at Eschaton is doing a great job following up on Sen. Rick Santorum's statements regarding his belief that we have no right to privacy and that the government should be able to regulate private sex acts in our own homes, along with the reactions to his statement.
One statement Santorum made that, so far, isn't getting quite as much attention as the initial quote likening consensual sex between adults to bigamy, incest, adultery and polygamy is his contention that teens who were molested by priests were just engaging in a consensual, adult relationship.
In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship.This is truly an outrageous statement, and is no different than claiming a rape victim "asked for it" or otherwise brought the attack on herself.
As for Santorum's contention that the victims of these priests were engaged in just a "basic homosexual relationship", Atrios provides several quotes regarding former priest John Geoghan, including this:
I felt a little funny about it," McSorley recalled in an interview. "I was 12 years old and he was an old man."I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like any kind of a "basic relationship" - hetero- or homosexual - to me.Riding home after getting ice cream, McSorley says, Geoghan consoled him. But then he patted his upper leg and slid his hand up toward his crotch. "I froze up," McSorley said. "I didn't know what to think. Then he put his hand on my genitals and started masturbating me. I was petrified." McSorely added that Geoghan then began masturbating himself.
Atrios also notes that Ari Fleischer claimed today that the President didn't have any comments on Santorum's statement because "typically" the President doesn't comment on Supreme Court cases, rulings or findings. That quote is accompanied by a quote from the President's remarks on the affirmative action case involving the University of Michigan that was recently argued before the Supreme Court.
Blogspot has been having some problems lately with permalinks to specific entries in blogs maintained there, so it's best just to go to Eschaton to check out his posts. I'm sure we've not yet heard the last of it, either.
Rob at Emphasis Added hits it out of the park again today, with his commentary on the flap over Rick Santorum's comments, sexual repression, reactionary politics and homophobia.
The psychologist and political theorist Wilhelm Reich made an intriguing link between the dynamics of sexual repression and reactionary politics, arguing that the latter was an externalization of the repressed individual’s lack of control over powerful sexual urges. Essentially, the authoritarian tendencies of political movements on both the far right and far left represent the efforts of sexually repressed individuals and social masses to reproduce the misery of their own repression on everyone else, and it is no accident that sexual Puritanism and “family values” are part of the vocabulary of every historical authoritarian movement. In Reich’s view, the lifting of sexual repression as a feature of social mores will inevitably result in a more progressive politics. (This is a radical simplification, and those interested should consult Reich’s Mass Psychology of Fascism and The Sexual Revolution, both from the early 1930s, for more information.)Joe Bob says "Check it out!".
Howard Dean has now issued a call for Sen. Rick Santorum to resign from his leadership position in Congress. Currently, Sentorum is the Republican's #3 man.
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on Wednesday called for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum to resign his leadership post after the lawmaker compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.Go Howard!
"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral. Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate," Dean said in a statement.
At this point, I haven't yet decided who I will support for President in the 2004 election, but I have a feeling it will wind up being a tough call between Howard Dean and John Kerry. Both seem to have a number of strengths, but I haven't yet identified what their major weaknesses are - and every candidate will have a few. I would, however, like to recommend checking both of them. Dean is garnering a lot of excitement in some quarters right now - not just for his denunciation of Santorum, but because of his stand on other issues as well - including the Iraqi war. Kerry got a major burst of publicity a couple weeks ago when he called for a "regime change" here in the US and was blasted by the GOP for daring to suggest we need a change of presidency during a way.
Information on Dean is available at his official campaign site Dean for America and his official blog Dean: Call to Action.
Information on John Kerry is available at his campaign site John Kerry for President.
Lots going on today in blogland - and the general media - about Senator Rick Santorum's comment that allowing "consensual (gay) sex" in the privacy of the home would allow anything in the privacy of the home, including adultery, bigamy, incest and polygamy.
In a Salon article yesterday, Andrew Sullivan noted that the actual quote from Sen. Santorum was actually a much broader comparison.
First off a simple question: What did Santorum actually say? The reason I ask this is that I don't know anyone who speaks in parentheses. Did the AP reporter add the "(gay)" part to provide context for the quote? But such context could easily be provided by a simple sentence beforehand, while leaving the actual quote intact. From the story, it seems as if reporter Lara Jakes Jordan added the "(gay)" in order to get around her poor sentence construction. If so, she ruined a huge and damaging Freudian slip. Because it's clear from the quote that simply consensual sex -- gay or straight -- is precisely what Santorum wants to police.Atrios notes that, in another quote from the same interview, Santorm claims that post-pubescent men (i.e. teenagers) who had sex with Catholic priests were engaged in a "basic homosexual relationship" that was "consensual" - ignoring, of course, that the victim is still a minor (and would be considered the victim of molestation under almost any law). Just as sexual relationships between patients of any age and their doctors or therapists are considered unethical, and, in some cases, illegal, because these professionals hold a position of authority in the patient's life, so does a Priest hold a position of authority in a parishoner's life, and thus is able to exert a stronger influence on their victim, in effect coercing them through abuse of their perceived power.
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.DailyKOS points out that, while condeming the gay "lifestyle" and how allowing consentual sex be unregulated in the privacy of the home, Santorum makes sure to clarify that he doesn't have any problem with the gays themselves.
But being a good Christian, Santorum doesn't condemn the homosexual. No siree.And how does Santorum justify his desire for the government to be able to regulate all private sex acts? He says that the regulation of sexual activites - the regulation of an individuals passions and wants - is necessary because society must support the family.I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. [...] I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions.
You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.And, of course, the reason we must protect "the family" is because of children.[..] And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children.So, Santorum wants the government to have the right to regulate individual sexuality because "deviant" practices undermine the "family", and the family is important because that's what produces children.
I would absolutely love it if some reporter could sit Santorum down again and ask him a few more questions. For example, if certain kinds of sexuality are harmful to "the family", and the family is important because it produces children, should all non-reproductive sex acts be banned? What do you do with infertile people, who physiologically cannot have children? And what about couples like my husband and I, who, knowing that we would make rotten parents, have taken steps to ensure that we don't have children? Should we all be told that it's ok for us to have sexual desires (just as he thinks its ok for gays to have sexual desires for people of the same sex), but that we shouldn't act on those desires (just as Santorum believes gays should refrain from acting on their desires)? Where does the line get drawn? Should the government be involved in regulating things such as what sexual positions are allowable - for example, making the "missionary" position the only legal position since that is the one believed to be best for encouraging conception?
Bizzarely, Santorum seems to think that such decisions should be left up to the individual states - so that people who live in one state could outlaw all sex except procreative sex, and another state could allow pretty much anything anyone could want.
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.I find it outrageous that this is a conversation that we should even need to have. Our sexual lives should be precisely that - ours! Santorum believes that there should be no right to privacy in this country, and that without this right, the government could then step in and regulate sexuality. But there may even be a way around that. Now, this is just my own personal "pet" theory, and maybe it wouldn't work at all, but it seems to me that there have been many actions that have been held to be forms of expression or "speech" - things such as flag burning, various forms of art - including performance art - and so on. What is more "expressive" than a sexual act? Now, granted, one Senator speaking out does not a crisis make, so "emergency" tactics are not needed now, nor is widespread panic - but it can't hurt to at least consider what kinds of tactics might be useful for when future cases arise.
On the whole, this will likely turn out to be a tempest in a teacup, but ideas like this cannot be ignored. If they are not shouted down immediately, people who feel the same way will think that these ideas are acceptable, and they're not. Yes, Sen. Santorum and others who agree with him have their right to their beliefs and they have the right to express them. I am in no way suggesting that the government should do anything to shut them up. But the protest against these ideas must be loud and strong so that they cannot find places to flourish. I'm not willing to let the government into my bedroom. I hope you're not, either.
Howard Dean, a Democratic candidate for president and the Vermont governor who signed that state's "Civil Unions" law, allowing gay couples to form legal relationships similar to marriage, has posted a statement to his official blog about Rick Santorums comparison of consensual gay sex to adultery, bigamy, incest and polygamy:
In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum's remarks.As I noted yesterday, Santorum's comments equate consensual gay sex with acts that are either deceptive or exploitave in nature, neither of which is a inheirent part of gay sex between consenting adults.That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments --comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their familie -- is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive.
The silence with which President Bush and the Republican Party leadership have greeted Sen. Santorum's remarks is deafening. It is the same silence that greeted Senator Lott's offensive remarks in December. It is a silence that implicitly condones a policy of domestic divisiveness, a policy that seeks to divide Americans again and again on the basis of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation.
I hope that more will also speak out against Sentorum's comments and make it clear that consenting gay adults have the same right to love whomever they choose as any other couple of consenting adults, and that making public statements otherwise is as bad and as shameful as making other bigoted comments.
Link via Atrios
In a statement sure to shock lawmakers everywhere, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania reminded America that if the Supreme Court decides that citizens have the right to consensual gay sex in their own home, it could lead to people thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to engage in adultery in your own home as well.
No, seriously, that's not too far off from what he raelly said. Here's his quote from an Associated Press interview published on Monday:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."Sen. Santorum seems to be missing a few points in making his statement, not the least of which is that places where adultery is illegal in America are few and far between (indeed, if any even still exist).
Personally, I consider adultery to be one of the more grevious actions one can commit. I do not approve of it, I would not tolerate it from my husband, nor would I engage in it personally, and I tend to be a bit judgemental of people who do. But as morally wrong as I may think adultery is, I also recognize that, except in the case of my own marriage, my opinion on adultery counts for exactly squat.
In comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, Santorum seems to be missing the point that these things are not always truly comparable.
In most cases of bigamy, for example, only the bigamist knows what's going on. As with adultery, it's most common that each of adulterer or bigamist's additional partners are completely in the dark about the existence of the others, and the adulterer/bigamist stays busy trying to keep juggling without dropping any of the balls. The main feature that adultery and bigamy have in common which makes both of them objectionable to many people is that they are based on deception.
With incest and polygamy, what you are typically looking at is exploitation. Incest involves one family member taking advantage of the trust given to them by another - usually younger - family member and abusing that trust to gain sexual gratification. Polygamy, as it is most often thought of, generally features a man who gathers to himself many wives, frequently several years younger than himself, and, in some cases, the younger sisters or daughters of earlier wives. As with incest, the perpetrator takes advantage of the naivete and trust that the younger girls have and turns it to his own goal of gathering multiple sex partners that he can have a fair amount of control over.*
Consensual gay sex, however, is neither decitful nor exploitave. In fact, aside from the gender of the partners, it's very much like heterosexual sex. Sure, you can have gay relationships that involve deceit or exploitation, just as you can have strait relationships that have those same qualities - but those qualities are not what defines the nature of a gay relationship. And just as my opinions on adultery don't count for anything outside my own relationship, people's opinions on homosexuality shouldn't carry any weight outside of their own relationship, either.
It's one thing to speak out about situations in which people are being exploited or manipulated without their knowledge or against their will - but if everyone involved in the relationship is aware of exactly what is going on, is capable of giving their consent and has voluntarily and freely done so, then why should it be any of my business how or what they do -- and why should it be any of Senator Santorum's business, either?
*(Note: There are other, non-exploitive, forms of polygamy that are seen from time to time, which I may write more about later. These relationship groups are significantly different, however, in that they are made of consenting adults who are well aware of what they are getting into, and generally do not involve one dominant person manipulating younger or more vulnerable partners for their own gain.)
Uggabugga has posted a copy of a poster made by the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS which talks about why Mr. Rogers is now in Hell. It even has a rending of what they think the conversation between Matt Sheppard and Fred Rogers must have been like when they met in Hell a few weeks ago.
It astounds me that someone can be that sick and, well, evil. What they have to say is pretty vile stuff, so I suggest caution in reading it.
I have to say, though, I still think the scariest thing about the whole Westboro Church is that it's leader, the disbarred Fred Phelps, actually tried to run for the Governor of Kansas - and on the Democratic ticket, no less. That was the year I changed my voters registration from independent to Democrat so that I could vote in the Democratic primary and help make sure Phelps got knocked out of the competition as early as possible - and I've left it Democrat ever since, just incase the nithing decides to try it again. (The linked article notes that Phelps was the only Democrat who had filed for the election, but the Kansas Democratic Party was able to recruit another candidate in time for the primaries and election, thank the Gods!)
If you're not familar with Phelps, he's a guy that even Rev. Jerry Falwell thinks is over the line:
"I found it almost impossible to believe that human beings could be so brutal and vicious to a hurting family," said the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Ain't Kansas great? ::sigh::
ADDENDUM: Just thought I'd give you a taste of how seriously fucked in the head this guy is. Here's an excerpt from an interview he gave to "Black Table".
BT: Right. So, when was the last time you guys were in New York City?
FRED: Well, it hasn't been long ago. We've been up there three times since Sept. 11 picketing with big signs that say "Thank God For Sept. 11" and that the FDNY is a fag fire department.
BT: Why's that?
FRED: Well because they're laced with fags and their fag agenda and their chaplain was fag priest named Mychal Judge
BT: Oh, yes… that's right.
FRED: And any outfit that's that dumb or evil -- I mean an out-of-the closet fag priest?! And they bragged about it! And they need to be picketed. And they're not heroes and we got signs that say all that.
When St. Patrick's Cathedral was honoring them on a Sunday not long after Sept. 11 and they had all those fire trucks lined up there and they're praising them to the high heavens then we were over there with signs saying that they're not heroes and they're all bound for hell. Now, that's the way you preach.
Witch Hunt
Lyrics by Neal Peart
Music by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson
From the 1981 album Moving Pictures
The night is black, without a moon.
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill.
Features distorted in the flickering light,
Faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possesed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.
They say there are strangers who threaten us,
Our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness to danger us
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.
Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand.
I first heard this song 22 years ago. At the time, I remember thinking that - from what I could tell anyway - things weren't at all like the song made it sound. I figured that Neal Peart (Rush's lyricist) must have been looking back on the 50's and the blacklisting, or something of that nature. I couldn't really imagine people holding the kind of attitudes the song portrays.
Over the years, though, I've seen the song become more and more relavent - more reflective of what's happening in the world, to the extent that on most sites that ask for a "favourite quote" or something of that nature, I almost always cite the last line of the song - "Ignorance and prejudice and fear go hand in had". (Yes, I have a bad habit of quoting Rush [the band, not the idiot] on a somewhat regular basis. Most Rush fans do *g*)
While it may well be that part of why I see it as more relavent now than I did when I was younger has to do with my own move from trying to fit into the mainstream - where it's sometimes hard to see what's really going on - to standing on the sidelines, looking in (and being quite content to stay there), when I read about the threats of violence against protestors, things like the USA PATRIOT act and PATRIOT II, Total Information Awareness, bigotry against Muslims, people of Middle Eastern origin (or who just look like they might be), French people (or anything with French in the name) and the lengths some are willing to go to try and silence dissent, I realize that this is a song that, sadly, will never be out of date.
I originally posted this in Rayne's comments section on a message she posted today about her daughter's teacher telling her not to call fries "French" fries, but that they were now "Freedom fries", but I wanted to post it here, also, because I think parents should be aware that this kind of crap does happen in our public schools, and should be watching out to make sure that your own children's teachers aren't indoctrinating them rather than educating them.
It's really frightening how easily that kind of stuff gets into our society - and where it shows up. Groupthink is one of the most insisious evils that I know of.
As for what happened at your daughter's school, well, that is beyond pathetic. Students in public schools should not be subjected to such blatant propaganda.
In addition to being ridiculous, this whole "hate the French" attitude has already begun to be translated into real crimes against French people and businesses with "French" in their name.
A woman who had moved to the states from France had her garage door vandalized, with a message reading "Scum. Go back to France", and a man who owned a chain of stores called "French Cleaners" had graffiti scratched into the window of one of this stores saying "F%$& the French" - which weakened the window enough to cause it to shatter, and had a pellet gun fired at a second store. At roughly the same time, his third store was destroyed by fire. At last report, the fire department was not classifying the fire as suspicious, but most of the media was, and I have to admit, I'd find it hard to believe that it wasn't arson - though the possiblity does exist.
The schools have no business whatsoever teaching children intolerance of anything, regardless of the teacher - or anyone else's - point of view. I am SO furious on your behalf right now.
Just like the teacher who was only giving extra credit to students who wrote and sent letters to the President that promoted her position on the war, this teacher is crossing the line between giving students the basic knowledge and materials they will need in order to learn how to make their own decisions and opinions and is simply trying to put opinions in their heads to start with. It is completely inexcusible, and I wish you all the best in handling this. I'm sure you'll be able to make them understand what exactly was wrong with what they did! :)
Something I was thinking about earlier today, in regards to how we, as a culture, handle concerns of racism, especially in light of the increased tension these last two years.
Right after the 9/11 attacks, we were urged to remember that not all Middle Easterners were responsible for what had happened - not even all Muslims were. There were constant reminders in the media from civic and governmental leaders that we should take care not to take out our anger on people who had nothing to do with the actions that had been taken against us. The President has spoken out on many occasions, assuring the Muslim, Arabic and general Middle Eastern communities that they are a valued part of our country and our culture, and reminding the rest of us to treat them fairly.
Keep in mind - at that point, we had just faced the horrors of having airplanes flown into busy offices and the Pentagon, with a fourth aimed who-knows-where before it was brought down by its passengers. Over 3,000 innocent people had just died, and all of the perpetrators could be traced back to one racial/cultural group and one religion. But America is a tolerant country, we were reminded, and while we may be angry at people who look and sound like the Muslims, Arabs and other Middle Easterners who live here, it wasn't their fault, and it would be wrong to take our anger out on them.
Fast forward a year-and-a-half. We want to go to war against Iraq. France doesn't, and stands up to us. Now, France can't actually stop us from going to war, and it's unlikely that their refusal to join us in battle is really going to cost us lives - especially since I've heard nothing about there even being a scintilla of a chance that France would have sent troops or supplies. So, basically, France thumbs its nose at us. What do we do?
Well, we start renaming foods, and boycotting French items. It doesn't seem to matter to anyone that there are many Americans who, having noticed that imported French just-about-anything has enough of a cachet to it for there to be a reasonably consistant market for it, have built their lives around selling imported French goods. There are French restaraunts, gormet shops, cheese and wine shops, even stores featuring French fashions. The people who run these stores had nothing to do with the decision the French government made to not help the US. They may not even be French themselves - but their livlihoods are now now at risk because suddenly we're all supposed to boycott French everything. Sure, they're not needing to place orders for a while may eventually hurt some anonymous French corporation - but before it does that, it's going to hurt that American businessman - at a time when our economy is pretty rotten to begin with.
We hear various comics making jokes about the French, those lovable "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". We see our Congressional representatives ordering the cafeteria to rename foods and trying to get money to bring dead American bodies back from French burial grounds. The White House is even rumoured to have endorsed the idea of boycotting French items. If you want to pick on the French, it's fine by Uncle Sam.
Notice how different these reactions are? Nobody's out there trying to tell people we need to show tolerance for French-Americans. No one's offering them any reassurances that we don't hate them or blame them for what the French government did. We didn't recommend boycotts of Middle Eastern goods and foods after 9/11, but we're supposed to avoid French stuff now. This makes no sense to me.
I have to wonder if it's seen as "ok" to be intolerant towards the French because they're not a minority - so a little racist harrassment shouldn't be any kind of big deal to them. Or maybe if we were more afraid that the Middle Eastern community might get angry if we didn't try to prevent expressions of hatred towards them, and that we might end up with more terrorist attacks on our hands (a pretty racist view right there, if you ask me). Who knows what else could have been going on in our collective noggin that would explain the difference. All I know is that there is a difference, and it just makes our current treatment of the French look that much more juvinille.
Did the people who insist on renaming French fries and French toast, and who want to have the government pay to move the bodies of soldiers killed in WWII from Fance to America really think it wouldn't lead to things like this?
(3/17/03- Houston) — For Francoise Thomas, the anger against France for its continuing opposition to military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein hadn't hit home until she read about it on one of her doors.
When Thomas took out the garbage Saturday morning, she saw red letters spray-painted on the garage door of her townhouse.
"Scum go back to France," it read.
I don't even want to know what's next...
UPDATE: Here is a picture of the garage after it was "redecorated".
An editorial at the Christian Science Monitor takes the "lets avoid anything French" trend to it's next logical point:
Why stop with Evian, Total gasoline, and the Concorde (
justonly the Air France flights)? Let's get to the heart of thematterthing: Ahugebig percentage of the words inmoderntoday's English are of - gasp! - Frenchoriginbeginnings. What if, as a result of thecurrent diplomatic disputetoday's falling out between lands, the Frenchdemandask for their words back? We could all be linguistichostagescaptives.
In some ways, it's almost hard to tell which anti-French protests are supposed to be taken seriously and which are the result of people trying to point out how silly the whole effort is. When I first read about the Florida Congresswoman who wants the government to pay - using tax dollars - for any families who want to move the bodies of their WWII veteren relatives from their current burial places in France to American soil, I thought for sure it was some kind of a joke - but it's not. She's dead serious.
"I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today," Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite said in introducing legislation providing financial help for the reburial of veterans from the two world wars.
There are many reasons I worry for this country. She's right up there.
On a positive note, at least veterans groups aren't immediatly jumping on the bandwagon:
Steve Thomas, a spokesman for the American Legion, said the veterans' group would need some time to look at the legislation. He said the American Legion has always respected the wishes of the families concerning those who died in combat, but noted that "a lot of people may not want to repatriate their fallen loved ones, separating them from their comrades, to make a statement about the French government."
Safely in the satire column is a petition at Petition Online asking that the actor French Stewart change his name to Freedom Stewart. Scary thing is, he comes across as goofy enough that I could almost see him doing it (albeit temporarily). Turns out he's got a new movie coming out on video - the sequal to Inspector Gadget - so he could probably even use the publicity if he did. Whether he does (or would) or not, though, the petition itself is cute.
I really hate idiocy. Calling french fries and french toast "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" is pathetically juvinile - like something kids in grade school would do. That it's being done now by Congress is simply depressing. Haven't they got more important things to concern themselves with?
The Congressman leading the effort says that this is a "small but symbolic" way of protesting France's refusal to cooperate in the war effort, but somehow I doubt that it really has much of an impact on the French at all. Except maybe to make them laugh at us.
This was the opening post today for a short discussion on MetaFilter (the link in the message goes to the newspaper article that triggered the post:
The group's intent "is to support the right of Augusta National to choose their members regardless of race, religion, sex or creed," Powell said.
The group in question is the Ku Klux Klan. Silly.
The issue being discussed, of course, is the Augusta National Golf Course's refusal to admit female members. Most of the replies to the message indicate strong support for the idea that Augusta needs to change their policy, and some speculated that now that the KKK has thrown their pointed hats into the "keep 'em separated" ring, Augusta may find itself forced to change the policy just to avoid the embarassment of being supported (and thus linked in the many people's minds) with the KKK.
Here's the thing that gets me, though: If my understanding is correct, Augusta National is a private club, supported by its members. Yes, it gets a lot of attention, particularly in regards to the Masters' Golf Tournament, and, as one MiFier noted, a lot of "backroom dealing" goes on in country clubs, but neither of these factors changes the fact that it is not a public facility.
Now, I do not like the idea that this private club excludes women. I think it's sexist and silly. I also think, however, that it is their choice to make. I don't have to support them with any of my money, and I don't have to watch their tournament - and neither does anyone else. But I believe very strongly that its important to keep in mind that they do - and should - have the right to include or exclude whomever they want from their private organization. Why? Because there are a lot of other private organizations that have exclusionist policies that many people support, such as the a council for black mayors and business-women's associations. There are even colleges and universities that restrict their student population to a specific kind of minority. Organizations like these are not controversial. People understand why minorities wants groups and places of their own, and seem to be happy to let them have it.
When it comes to white men, however, there's a problem. One common excuse for this is that white men have always had power and have always had their exclusive clubs. Likewise, the minority-only organizations are justified by pointing out that minorities aren't welcome in the white, male enclaves, and that minorities (both racial and gender-based) have issues that only others from their same demographic can really understand.
This is where I start getting confused. If minorities can only be understood by other minorities, then why would it not also be considered true that white men can only be understood by other white men? And if all of the places that, until now, have belonged to white men are to be opened to all, then there should be no need for minorities to have organizations of their own, since they would no longer be excluded. Yet, even as more and more places have been opened up to minorities, I am unaware of any comperable reduction in the number of minority only groups.
If our country wants to strive for total equality, then there has to be one rule for all - either its ok for private organizations to be selective in their membership, or all private organizations need to be open to all. Saying that minorities can have their own private clubs, but whites can't isn't equality - in fact, its discriminatory - against the whites.
Don't get me wrong - these thoughts and beliefs apply ONLY to private organizations. If an organization receives any support from public funds, then their membership must be open to all - since "all" are chipping in through their taxes. This is why I believe that the decision allowing the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals is dead wrong. They receive some of their support from public funds, and are often given "breaks" by governmental entities, such as allowing them to use schools as little or no cost for their meetings and recruitment, or other, similar, benefits. If they're going to accept public support, then they should not be allowed to discriminate - period. By the same token, if I were to learn that Augusta is publicly supported in any way, then they, too, should be open. Otherwise, its really up to the paying members to decide how they want their club to be run.
One of the beauties of capitalism is that we can often use the marketplace to make our voices heard on political issues by which products and companies we choose to support or boycott. Right now, a number of people are championing boycotts of French, German, Belgian and Luxembourgian companies. (If anyone knows the proper term for "people or things from Luxembourg, please let me know - the one I used is a mouthful.) While I may find the idea kind of amusing, it's their right to do so and if it makes a difference, more power to them.
One such group is the Women's Republican Club, who have initiated their boycott to coincide with Valentine's Day, since many of the "luxury" gifts given on Valentine's Day are imported. They did, however, want to make note that some items one might think are from the targeted countries aren't.
Since the Mercedes M class is manufactured in the United States, not Germany, and Godiva chocolates made for American distribution are produced in Pennsylvania, not Belgium, these products are exempt from the boycott.
So, if you want to get that special girl some nifty chocolates, or are planning to splurge on a new car for your sweetie, you're ok.
Marc Rafabert, or fromages.com, is taking the boycott of French cheese in stride.
''It's their way of showing their patriotism. Good for them,'' he said. ''We've decided not to reply to the e-mails. What good would it do? I'm not a politician. ... But you've got to be adult. I don't think it's a very well thought-through reaction.''
Refabert said he thinks American customers won't be able to maintain the boycott for too long because French cheese tastes too good.
''It's just temporary. They'll come back in two or three months.''
Bigotry of a Teachers Union. Bigotry of a Teachers Union The New Jersey Education Association, a Teachers Union, has a website that contains brochures called "Getting Involved in Your Child's School." It comes in three versions: English, Spanish, and African-American. [more inside] [MetaFilter]
When I first looked at the brochures - trying to figure out why one would be "English" and another "African-American" - I thought perhaps the difference was that the "English" version had pictures of white children and the "African-American" version had pictures of black children. Nope, that wasn't the only difference.
Steve_at_Linnwood posted sample paragraphs at MetaFilter from both the English and the African-American versions of the brochure so that they could be compared side-by-side:
Regular English Version:
The primary focus of the parent involvement program is on the child. By helping your child's teacher, you can offer students new and varied experiences - suited to their interests and capabilities.
By working in your school, you will become more familiar with its programs, and you will see why they are vital to your child. With this new understanding of education needs and goals, you can give the school the backing it needs and encourage others to do the same.
You will learn more about everyday happening in the classroom from the increased communication and interaction between you and the teacher. You will have the satisfaction of helping children during a very important stage of their development.
African-American Version:
The goal of the parent involvement program is to help children. By helping your child's teacher, you can offer students your experiences and support.
By working in your school, you will see how it works. With this new understanding, you can give the school the backing it needs.
You will learn more about the classroom. You will enjoy helping children.
Both versions ask "Why do teachers need my help?"
Regular English Version:
Today, there is an increasing emphasis on individualized instruction--fitting the curriculum to the child. Teachers want to employ new methods and materials to give each child personal guidance.
When you assist teachers with growing paperwork, make instructional materials, or conduct a science experiment, you give them more time for planning activities, for trying new teaching strategies, and for working directly with children. As a parent volunteer, you allow them to be more effective teachers--and the school obtains your skills and services that might be unavailable due to financial limitations.
African-American Version:
Today, teachers want to use new methods and materials to give each child personal guidance.
When you assist teachers, you give them more time to work with children. You allow them to be more effective teachers.
In some ways, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall at the meeting where the Teacher's Union officials decided that the different versions would be a good idea. Are they somehow under the impression that "English"-speaking people need more words to understand a concept, or that "African-American"-speaking people can't handle as many and need to have information simplified for them? Either option is rather insulting to both groups, though the second is by far more offensive - and sadly, more likely.
The files were originally posted in PDF format at the New Jersey Education Association's website: English, Spanish, and African-American. Because of concerns that they files may be pulled once the flack starts flying as more people find out these brochures, Steve_at_Linnwood has posted copies of them to his own website: English, Spanish, and African-American.
I suppose we can be grateful that they just decided to simplify the language for the African-American version. They could have used Ebonics.
Jeanne D'arc, author/editor of "Body and Soul" has a number of excellent articles regarding the issue of racism, Republicans, the South and why it's important to be paying attention. Some excellent references from her December 17th piece:
But you'll have to go a little beyond the major newspapers before you get to the really important point: Republicans want Lott out fast not just because he tars their name, but because the longer the story plays out, the more likely it is that people will notice other Republicans who've played similar games.
Joe Conason did a great piece yesterday on John Ashcroft's ties to segregationists. Josh Marshall went after Ashcroft as well. Timothy Noah pointed out that Strom Thurmond is not quite as reconstructed as the press (and, in particular, the New York Times) would have us believe. Hesiod is piling on George Bush I's warm and fuzzy feelings for the 1948 Dixiecrat presidential candidate. Paul Krugman is going after the Republicans' "soft spot for theocracy" (which he seems to have discovered via Atrios .) And in a weird piece defending Lott (I think, it's hard to tell), William Saletan argues that a lot of the Republicans now going after Lott have plenty of "politeness to bigots" and "amnesia about struggles for civil rights" to answer for as well. (Saletan seems to suggest that his makes Lott somewhat less condemnable; I'd suggest it means the condemnation so far has been much too narrowly focused.)
It can't be repeated too often: It isn't just Lott.
Also, be sure to read her commentary on Billie Holiday, Ronald Reagan, John Ashcroft and Trent Lott. Not only does she have some excellent points to make, but the writing itself is great.
Senate GOP to meet on Lott's fate
December 16, 2002
By David Espo
Associated Press
WASHINGTON-- Senate Republicans will meet early next month to settle the fate of Sen. Trent Lott as party leader in the wake of a racially charged controversy, GOP sources said Monday.
The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the meeting would be called for Jan. 6, the day before the Senate convenes for a new session under Republican control.
The decision came as White House spokesman Ari Fleischer criticized Lott's comments anew, and a key GOP senator issued a statement that pointedly refrained from saying Lott should remain as leader.
While the meeting is 3 weeks off - allowing time for the issue to cool down and calls for Trent Lott's ouster as Senate Majority Leader to pass - it will be happening, and it opens the door for Lott to be removed. What hasn't been quite as well publicized is the opportunity this also opens for Democrats.
If Lott is removed as Majority Leader, it is generally believed that he will also resign from the Senate, and the governor of Mississippi would then be in a position to appoint his replacement. The Democrat governor of Mississippi.
What's most interesting at this point, however, is that, while the White House is not calling for Lott to resign, they are not encouraging him to say, either. In fact, Repubicans have been told that if Lott does either lose or resign his leadership position and, subsequently, also resigns as a Senator, Bush is "willing to accept the consequences, " including his probable replacement by a Democratic Senator, appointed by the governor of Mississippi.
If Democrats can keep this issue alive Lott may either find it necessary to resign on his own accord, or Senate Republicans may feel that they have no option other than to replace him - either way creating the opportunity for another Democrat to enter the Senate, and providing one more vote in the effort to keep Bush from running roughshod over the Constiution.
-=<*>=-
On a related note, Joe Conason has some very interesting points to make about John Ashcroft's own history of questionable affiliations with white supremacist and segregationist groups. Granted, Ashcroft has not made a recent issue of his beliefs the way Trent Lott has, but it is still worth noting.
Number 2 GOP Senator calls for new vote
MSNBC
SEN. DON Nickles, Lott’s deputy for six years as the GOP whip, urged other Republican senators to consider picking a new leader because of the controversy about Lott’s comments that conveyed nostalgia for the policies of racial segregation.
Nickles, who had kept silent on Lott’s remarks, said he accepts Lott’s multiple apologies over the last week.
“I am concerned that Senator Lott has been weakened to the point that may jeopardize his ability to enact our agenda and speak to all Americans,” Nickles told ABC’s “This Week.” “There are several outstanding senators who are more than capable of effective leadership, and I hope we have an opportunity to choose.” [...]
[...] Under Senate GOP rules, a meeting of the rank and file must be called if five senators request it. Simmons said Nickles had not yet asked other senators to support his call for a meeting to consider Lott’s fate. [...]
[...] There long have been rumblings that Nickles, spearheading some of the more conservative Republican senators, might someday mount a challenge to Lott. Lawmakers have described the two men as having a cool relationship, and Lott has sometimes been seen by conservatives as too willing to cut deals with Democrats. [...]
No real comments to add at this point, I just thought this was an interesting development. If you feel strongly that Lott should step down, this might be a good time to look up your Congressional representatives and, if you have a Republican Senator, contact him or her to suggest that s/he step forward as one of the 5 senators needed to trigger a meeting and possible re-election for the Majority Leader's post. If you scroll down this page a bit, you'll see a form you can use to locate the contact information for your Senators and Representatives.
Today's been a big day for talk of resignations. The mainstream media is all a-twitter with quesitons about whether or not Trent Lott can salvage his career, or if he will resign as Senate Majority Leader. Cardinal Law's latest offer of resignation has been accepted by the Vatican and both Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell have resigned as the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the September 11 Investigation committee.
Several articles on the controversy surrounding Trent Lott have already appeared here, providing additional examples of times he's been, shall we say, racially insensitive. The Talking Points Memo blog (credited today on MSNBC as having kept the story alive until the mainstream media finally realized that there was a story) has an impressive collection of links, quotes, sound files and other information providing details of just how often Lott has made his views on race-relations known.
Lott, today, has offered yet another apology, an has indicated that he it talking to Black Entertainment Television (BET) about giving a speech on their network about his "hopes and dreams" for people "regardless of their race." He also stated that he has no intention of resigning, and promised that "[i]n the days and months to come, I will dedicate myself to undo the hurt I have caused and will do all that I can to contribute to a society where every American has an opportunity to succeed."
CNN has the video footage of Lott's press conference available on their video page.
Cardinal Law's resignation is an important step in the Catholic Church's attempt to deal with the continuing scandal, and ongoing problem, of sexual abuse by the priesthood. Law has, for far too long, tried to hide the fact that a problem existed, and, as the problem has come to light to both Catholics and the nation as a whole, he has worked more to protect the church from having to face the penalties it has earned, than to try and help those who have been hurt by the actions of priests and the inactions of the church. Even if Law is not solely to blame for the church's reticence to acknowledge the problem and take responsibility for the damage it has caused, he has become an important symbolic figured, personifying the "cover your ass" attitude that the church has displayed.
As for Henry Kissinger, his appointment as the leader of the panel that is being formed to investigate the September 11th bombing was controversial from the outset. While Kissinger is considered to be an excellent diplomat, his history is filled with questions about and accusations of involvement in a variety of controversies, and he is reported to be in favour of potentially damaging information being kept secret. Some had even suggested that part of why Kissinger has been selected was due to his secritive nature, given President Bush's initial opposition to any kind of a panel investigation into the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
Questions were also raised about potential conflicts of interest between clients Kissinger's consulting firm represents and the investigation itself. In resigning, Kissinger said that he was confident that no such conflicts actually existed, but was concerned that "the controversy would quickly move to the consulting firm I have built and own."
Kissenger's resignation follows that of Democrat appointee George Mitchell as Vice Chairman. Mitchell cited concerns about time commitments as the reason for his own resignation.
The People for the American Way have drafted a petition to President Bush asking that he demand Senator Lott's resignation. In their write up as to why they feel Lott should resign, they included a fuller explaination of why Lott's speaking to the Council for Concerned Citizens should be considered questionable, as well some notes on his voting record on major race-related issues.
President criticizes Lott’s remarks
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 12 — President Bush raised his voice in a political controversy enveloping Trent Lott, saying the Senate Republican leader’s comments about the segregated past were “offensive” and required the apology he gave. “Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive, and it is wrong,” Bush said Thursday to a mixed-race audience, drawing long applause.
“Recent comments by Sen. Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country,” Bush said.
“He has apologized and rightly so,” he said. “Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals.”
While it's good that President Bush has finally addressed Trent Lott's comment from Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration, he has also said that he does not feel Lott should resign as Senate Majority Leader. If, however, as Bush said, any suggestion that continued segregation would have had a positive effect on society is offensive and wrong, and that segregation is a violation of what America is meant to be, how can Lott be considered an acceptable leader for the Senate or the Republican Party?
This isn't the only time Lott has said or done something that has raised questions about his own views on segregation. In 1980, he made a very similar comment to the one that currently has brought him under fire, when he said that if Strom Thurmond has been elected, we "wouldn't be in the mess we are today." Around that same time, he also filed a friend of the court brief supporting Bob Jones University's attempt to preserve their tax exempt status, even though they had a ban on interracial dating.
"Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Mr. Lott, then a congressman, said in the 1981 friend-of-the-court filing.
He cited university admission programs intended to promoted racial diversity. "If racial discrimination in the interest of diversity does not violate public policy," the brief said, "then surely discrimination in the practice of religion is no violation."
Lott has also spoken to the Council of Concerned Citizens, a Southern conservative organization that espouses segregationist ideals (their entry in the Google search engine shows a web page description of "Advocating against minorities and racial integration," and lists them in the "Society > Issues > Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations > Race and Racism > Supremacy and Separatism > White" category). As noted in an excellent editorial by Jonah Goldberg of The National Review Online, Lott also wrote a column for their newsletter (though he has said he didn't know what they were up to at the time he wrote for them).
Lott has also expressed sympathy for causes such as the restoration of Jefferson Davis' citizenship.
As Goldberg noted in his editorial:
One has only two choices here: Either, you take Lott at his word or you don't. If you don't believe him, then, well, he's a racist and a foolish one for being so obvious about it. But if you take him at his word, that he made a mistake, that's even worse. I mean, he's been smeared with the racist label enough times to have learned his lesson, especially considering the fact he's supposed to lead the Republican Party.
Bush should demonstrate that he is serious in his belief that segregation is wrong and tell Sen. Lott that, in light of his recent statement, combined with other such statements in the past and other actions that have shown support for segregationist groups and causes, he is unfit to be a national leader, and demand his resignation.
Caught whistling Dixie
Four days later, Lott's controversial comment gets some attention. But not from top congressional Democrats.
By Anthony York
[...] On Monday, however, Al Gore spoke up. In an interview with CNN's Judy Woodruff Monday, Gore said, "It is not a small thing, Judy, for one of the half dozen most prominent political leaders in America to say that our problems are caused by integration and that we should have had a segregationist candidate. That is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines. That's the definition of a racist comment."
"Crossfire" host Paul Begala said Monday that the relative lack of attention paid to Lott's comments "does point out a very interesting difference between the left and the right. But more than the parties, it points to the differences between the right-wing and left-wing media." Had this been a Democratic mistake, it would have been blasted on Fox News and picked up elsewhere, he claims.
Begala says that the chorus of media voices can have a very real political impact, as he claims it did in the Minnesota Senate race after the death of Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone. "That echo chamber swung the election away from [Democratic candidate Walter] Mondale to [Republican Norm] Coleman," Begala says. "It was not just the conduct at the memorial service" -- which became an openly partisan affair -- "but the incredible orchestrated political conduct afterwards that helped turn that race." [...]
It is interesting that comments promoting Democrats and Democratic ideals at Senator Wellstone's funeral were so much more poorly received than Trent Lott's comments at Senator Thurmond's birthday celebration. Maybe its because I'm a liberal, but I find a comment that clearly implies that having elected a segretationist 50 years ago would have prevented the problem we have today far more offensive and indicitive of far worse judgement than people rallying to be able to continue the life's work and passion of a recently fallen comrade at his funeral.
I've also found the silence on this matter profoundly disappointing, given that only 4 years ago a politician in Washington DC felt pressured to resign after using the term "niggardly", even though "niggardly" is not actually realted to "nigger". People assumed that it was a racial epithet and the outcry was sufficient that he offered his resignation (which was initially accepted, though at last report, the mayor intended to rehire him). Even as recently as September of this year, a teacher in North Carolina was disciplined when she used the word in class. Shouldn't the outcry be even larger when one of our national political leaders, who has a history of being affiliated with racists organizations, says, in essence, that continuing the segregationist policies of the past would have been a good thing?
Lott has issued an apology and says that "he was not trying to suggest that he embraces "the discarded policies of the past." While he does say that he meant the remarks "light-heartedly", he doesn't really clarify what he did mean. Even taking into account that most people, when saluting someone on an advanced birthday, will make somewhat exaggerated claims, if you're going to say that electing Thurmond in 1948 would have prevented todays problems, you cannot separate the man from the policies he promoted, since it would have been through the implementation of those policies that the the prevention of today's problems (according to Lott) would have occured.
Part of the problem I have is that Lott has been in politics long enough to know what kind of comments will cause problems and which won't. He should know exactly how a statement of this nature will be taken, and he should have the good judgement not to make it. I also have a serious problem, however, with the lack of response from the media, and, more importantly, from civil libertiarians, Democrats and others who traditionally can be counted on to pounce on a gaffe of this nature. In the article quoted above, the implication is made that part of the silence may be because the Democrats know that they will need the South when it comes time for the 2004 elections. If this is the case, than, in my opinion, our country is much worse off than we may be thinking. If the price of victory is the tacit approval of racist beliefs and holding one's tongue when such comments are made by a national leader, it would, at best, be a hollow victory, won at the expense of the party's principles.
Bare bellies provoke a wobbly. Last week a group of angry young women stormed the offices of The Newcastle Herald to protest against columnist Jeff Corbett and his opinion of female midriff fashions, "belly blubber" and "horribly deep navels"... "At an age when girls should be striving to be pleasing to the eye, the male eye, these young women were going to serious lengths to expose an acre of wobbling excess. Haven't they looked in the mirror?"... Then he described exposed bellies as a form of terrorism." [Daily Rotten]
Ok, I'm a fat woman, so when I read an article like this, I tend to take more offense than others might. But more than anything else, the assertion Corbett makes that there should ever be a time when girls should strive to be pleasing to the male eye, bothers me.
It's true that for most "love" relationships there needs to be some physical attraction - but that need should pass fairly quickly, as the physical body is one of the most changable aspects of a person, making it very unstable to build a relationship upon.
Unfortunately, there are so many sources of pressure on women - especially young women - to conform to a certain body-type that we've seen a grave increase in eating disorders. Anorexia is becoming almost commonplace as young girls stive to be pleasing to the male eye, as is bulimia. There are even "support" groups now for people who think they have the right to choose to be anorexic if they so wish. I know many, many times I prayed and wished that I could be anorexic because I was so desparate to lose the weight I had gained - not so much so that I could be attractive, but so that people could quit being cruel to me. Had I been a weaker person - and there are many times I've wished for that as well - I can easily see that I would have killed myself long before now.
Many will say that being fat is a choice - and that all one needs to do is eat less and exercise more to lose it. Speaking from personal experience, however, I can tell you it's not that simple. There are many reasons why a person will gain or carry extra weight. But you know what? The whys of it shouldn't matter. A fat person is still a person, with all the intelligence, emotions, spirit and such as any other. I someone is not attracted to fat people sexually, that is, of course, their progative. What I disagree with is with the constant message being presented by society, the media and peers that it is some kind of moral failing or social wrong to be fat.
My husband participates in a message board for men with long hair. From time to time, one certain topic comes up that just about drives him nuts: Civil Rights protections for men with long hair and/or beards.
I can understand why it irritates him. As you may have noticed, I tend to be in favour of Civil Rights in general, and with protections to prevent discrimination against things like sexual orientation or religion. There are limits, however, as to what I think should be protected.
There are any number of reasons a person can be subjected to discrimination. Some of these are factors totally out of their control, such as what country they were born or raised in, what race they are, what gender they are and physical or mental deficincies (in the vast majority of cases). Others may have an aspect of control, but are still an intrinsic part of who the person is and are things that cannot be readily changed, such as religion, size or sexual orientation. A large number, however, are things that are entirely voluntary and can be changed at will. This last group includes things like length of hair, decision to wear facial hair, piercings, tatoos, modes of dress/style/fashion sense, whether or not to smoke, drug and alcohol use and other such choices. The first two groups I can see extending certain protections to, to help ensure that they have equal opportunities, though I do believe that trying to ensure equal outcomes is both nearly impossible and rather foolish.
Part of the problem I have with groups like the one proposed on the Men's Long-Haired board is that they tend to dilute the effectiveness of those groups fighing for civil rights based on factors that actually have some substance to them. Sure, how long you wear your hair is an expression of who you are, and it may even make you look better, but if you have to cut your hair for a job, it's not going to change who you fundamentally are the way having to change your religion might.
One argument I've heard that I find especially specious is that because how you wear your hair can be considered a form of expression, then under the First Amendment, no one can take away your right to wear it that way. This, as far as I'm concerned, is bull. First off (and this is a point far too many people seem to be oblivious of), the guarantee of Free Speech doesn't literaly mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want or wherever you want. It means that the <b>government</b> cannot place restrictions on your abiity to express yourself. It does not, however, mean that property owners, employers and other non-governmental entities do not have the right to estabish what they consider appropriate in terms of self-expression in areas or situations under their control.
It's what I sometimes call "the living room theory". When you're in my living room, I have the right to set the rules for my house. If I don't want you to smoke, I can tell you not to smoke; if I don't want you swearing while in my home, and I can ask you to stop and tell you to leave if you don't. When I'm in your home, you have the same right to place restrictions on me.
This same theory applies to businesses. They have fair amount of leeway in determining what kind of behaviour or (controllable) appearance they want in their employees. Whenever you interact with someone, you are representing the company, and how the company is represented affects the ability of the business to succeed or can bring about its failure. Even in areas where employees have no contact with customers, though, they company still has the right to establish rules for what they consider appropriate. Its just like the rights they have as to what you can use their equipment for (by forbidding personal phone calls or using company computers for non-company-related work, etc.), and to monitor your activity.
I know that many men are frustrated becuase they can't find jobs that will let them keep their long hair or beards. People who must wear their hair or beards a certain way for religious reasons are generally exempt from rules forbidding them, but for people who wear their hair long as a choice or a fashion statement, such exemptions aren't necessary. Imagine for a moment that the issue, instead of being men wearing long hair, was a group of people who, as a means of expressing themselves (or to make a fashion statement) decided to do away with bathing all together. How many people would feel it appropriate to give them special consideration, to reqiure companies to hire them, even though they smell horrible, and could easily change the situation if they wanted? While long hair may not be offensive in the same way, the issue is still quite similar. Both involve people making a personal choice for the purpose of self-expression, and both involve behaviour that some may consider inappropriate for their company (or other entity).
It just really bothers me when people with this kind of a frivolous issue try to focus the Civil Rights spotlight on themseles, eating away at the credibility of groups who genuinely need the Civil Rights protections.
Last week I had written a letter to Larkin Community Hospital, where the three Muslim students who were suspected of being possible terrorists and had their cars searched on the highway in Florida. Today, I received a response to my message from the hospital in regards to their situation. Since I had initially spoken out about their actions, I feel it is only appropriate that I also allow their response to be seen by the same audience. I must say, however, that I am very gratified to see that the reports in the media were, in fact, incorrect, and that the students are being allowed to continue their education with minimal disruption.
September 22, 2002
As a community hospital, we appreciate and value your input and would like to thank you for taking the time to share your views. Due to the misinformation and inaccurate reports by the media, many people were under the misconception that these students were "fired" or "kicked out" of their medical program. The medical training of Ayman Gheith, Kambiz Butt, and Omar Choudhary has never been in question, nor postponed or interrupted in any way; they have simply been reassigned to an alternate location. We have been working together with the students from the beginning of this ordeal to relocate them to other facilities to assure their safety, the safety of our patients, and the ability of our hospital to provide excellent patient care.
This is a medical school rotation, not an internship as has been incorrectly reported. They were never fired. Nor were they ever dismissed from the program by their university. Larkin Community Hospital is in full support of these students’ medical education. This rotation involves lectures and rotations at clinics. They were originally scheduled to be at the auditorium at Larkin for classroom lectures, not to work in the hospital. The entire class has simply been relocated to an auditorium at a different location.
Inaccurate media coverage has generated a significant amount of ill will towards the hospital triggering over 5,000 emails, phone calls, and faxes some of which have been disturbing. This interferes with our ability to provide the high quality of patient care to which we are committed. We cannot and will not jeopardize the care of these patients nor their safety--this is our first priority.
We are a hospital—a place where people come to seek medical care--not just a place of business. This is not the place to make a statement that will risk people’s lives, but a place to care for patients. This has always been understood and supported by the medical students, themselves, who appreciate our concern for patient care and safety. Yet, media reports and other correspondence declared me and the hospital to be "racist," "biased," "un-American," "coward," "abhorrent," and even "the real terrorists." Many went even further and sentenced us to "deserving" various forms of punishment both on earth and in the afterlife.
Many people asked us to "look at the facts" and to "not pass summary judgement" based on media reports. So I ask you to follow this advice: look at the facts and do not pass summary judgement based on inaccurate media reports.
From the start of this misfortunate incident, we have maintained the same position. This was and continues to be the only solution that would both protect the students and allow them to continue their medical education while at the same time assuring the safety of our patients and our ability to provide excellent healthcare. I am personally involved in and committed to ensuring Ayman, Kambiz, and Omar get the best medical experience and education possible.
Dr. Jack Michel
Chairman and CEO
Larkin Community Hospital
National Holiday?
All over San Antonio, Texas, United States of America today, people are celebrating "Diez y Seis" - independence day in Mexico.
I'm confused - do they celebrate the Fourth of July in Mexico?
The above entry by Mark Harden of InSane Antonio reminded me of one that that almost always drives me nuts around holiday seasons. We seem to have this feeling of "entitlement" when it comes to holidays, as if we (Americans) believe that all holidays are "fair game" for us to celebrate - whether or not they actually hold any significance for us at all. I have no problem with people who belong to a certain ethnic, cultural or religious group who want to get together with others to celebrate these days that hold meaning for them. What gets to me are the many people for whom it's basically just another chance to get loaded, or coerce family and friends into spending time together. It's the way it cheapens the actual meaning of the holiday and the disrespect it shows to those for whom it truly is a Holy Day that botheres me the most.
Americans of all stripes have been celebrating St. Patrick's Day for years, even though it's an Irish and Catholic holiday. Here you'll find people who's ancestry traces back to Northern Europe, Africa, China, Mexico, and just about everywhere else, out drinking green beer, talking with fake brogues, singing out of key and claiming to be Irish in order to get a few kisses. Can you imagine what would happen if someone decided that everyone should celebrate "Juneteenth" and spend a day pretending to be black? It don't imagine it would go over very well, but that's what we do to the Irish.
A few years back, a new beer holiday sprang up. I call it a beer holiday because the "push" to celebrate it came mainly from bars, as another way to sell more beer. That's the Mexican Independence Day. Interestingly, here in KC, Mexican Independence Day is usually celebrated on the 5th of May -- and is called "Cinco de Mayo". In Harden's comment, he refers to "Diez y Seis" - which, I believe, would be the 16th of something - and since it's a recent entry, my guess is the 16th of September. I think that happens to say a lot about just how serious people are about "celebrating" this holiday - it's not even clear what day it should be on.
By far, though, the most egregious example of people glomming onto holidays that they really have no business celebrating have to be Christmas and Easter. Actually, these holidays have been "glommed" twice - first when Christianity was trying to gain a foothold and made a point of placing as many of the holidays they wanted people to celebrate on days when the Pagans were already celebrating. They took the familiar days and added new meaning to them. Now, the secular world is doing its own takeover.
Christmas has gone from being a time to celebrate the return of the sun and the passing of the "dead" part of the year, to being a celebration of Christ's birth (even though an examination of the stories in the Bible would place His birth sometime in the spring), to a time when we're supposed to be all jolly and nice to each other and trade gifts, but it's not always clear why. Easter has gone from being a fertility festival (hence the rabbits and eggs), to a celebration of Christ's Resurrection - and now it seems as if the candy and card companies are wanting to turn it into Christmas Jr.; another rather generic "be nice and give gifts" time of year.
Even Halloween has undergone transformation over the years -- from being one of the holiest nights of the year to the old Pagans (and the beginning of their new year), to a night associated with fear and evil (as the Christians tried to strip away the holiness that the Pagans had attributed to the night), to a night when adults dress silly and get drunk and kids dress fun and extort candy from their neighbors.
As you may have noticed, there's a pretty consistant pattern to each of these changes. At some point, different corporate interests have figured out that there is money to be made by convincing people to celebrate a given holiday - and the best way to get as many people to celebrate it as possible is to promote it in ways that make it more generic - not so much the special provence of any ethnic, cultural or religious group, but something anyone could celebrate. So, for a day we can be Irish, or happy for the Mexicans, swap gifts in honour of nothing in particular or whatever else the marketers think they can convince us of. Granted, it would happen so easily if we didn't have a strong streak of materialism and hedonism in this country, but it still seems to be more a matter of marketing over meaning.
What can be done? Probably the most effective thing is to decide if there's actually a reason for you to celebrate a certain holiday. If you can't think of a compelling reason to be celebrating it, then you probably don't need to be celebrating it. At least it's something to think about.
Asshole of the Week
Ever wish you could tell a CEO what you think of him? (I write "him" because how many CEOs are not stupid white men?) Well, now's your chance!
Dr. Jack Michel is the CEO of Larkin Community Hospital in South Miami, Fla., the CEO who made the decision to cancel the internships of three Arab-American men because a woman of questionable mental health claims to have overheard them discussing a terrorist plot in a restaurant last week. He is the first Asshole of the Week.
[...]
Dr. Michel knew exactly what he was doing. Before giving the three men a chance to clear their name, he decided to cancel their internships. In a bullshit press release (see http://www.larkinhospital.com/press_releases.htm), he claimed, "We strongly believe that the students’ current notoriety could adversely affect the high quality of care we provide to our patients. We also remain concerned for the safety of our patients, our staff, and the students due to the large number of disturbing e-mails and phone calls received at the hospital since Friday. In addition, we felt that the students’ medical education would be adversely compromised due to the current national attention focused upon them."
Robert goes on to suggest writing to Dr. Michael and his boss to let them know just what you think of their cancellation of these student's internships. Here is a copy of what I sent:
I am appalled that your institution would cancel the internships of three men who have done nothing wrong and, in fact, are victims of the near-hysteria that exists over the possibility of terrorism-related incidents by Muslim- or Arab-appearing men.
In cancelling their internship, your institution is giving in to the baser fears - no matter how nobly you dress it up in statements of concern for your patients and the students themselves. I doubt it is of much comfort to them to know that you have decided that it is in their best interest to be denied the opportunity to continue their education at this time.
I sincerely hope that you will reconsider this matter. In a matter of a few days, the press and media hype about it will blow over, and the you, the students and your patients will be able to continue on with little further disruption. I'm sure by now you must be aware that the American attention span isn't very great.
I urge you to show these students that America is not all about hatred or fear and let them continue with the lives they had underway before one person's ill-informed rush to judgement sidetracked them.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| E-mail: |  |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
 | INTP |
 | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
 |
    
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| « ? ProChoice Is Not AntiLife # » | ||||||||||
| << | domain-ated | >> | ||||||||||
| << ? domain girls # >> | ||||||||||
| <·· PWA ··> | ||||||||||
| < ? blogs by women # > | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ‹ # Circle of Shadows ? › | ||||||||||
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | ||||||||||
| « # blogshares ? » | ||||||||||
| « # Scorpio ? » | ||||||||||
| < # Blogrollers ? > | ||||||||||
| < ? six degrees # > | ||||||||||
|
[ <<
?
Verbosity
#
>>
] |
||||||||||
| domain whore | ||||||||||
|
Are you a  ? Domain . Addict # |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
)O(
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
Rate me at Eatonweb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
![[ Registered ]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < £ Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/valid-rss-dylan2.gif "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
|
|
|
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
