There is a call for an apology from Obama for the "lipstick" comment. He refused after explaining why he need not apologize. We can see (if we bother) the whole context of Obama's comments. Now, one might bring up the "sambo" and "bitch" comments Palin made about Obama and Clinton. Oh, they aren't true? Where are the sources? We find that these cases turn, literally into "he said she said." Well, then maybe we shouldn't use either episode so indiscriminately as media fodder to pull down a candidate.
If we can't provide the entire context, use multiple, reliable, and credible sources, and we cannot get Q&A with both candidates on the issue, then the media and both campaigns need to forcefully and overtly say that they do not CONDONE any media coverage or disparaging remarks about their fellow candidates. And, they need to prove that they MEAN this.
I think the issue is that the candidates rely so heavily on no having to face the music or be accountable for their campaigns and supporters. They just want the support and to get the votes. This is dirty from all sides, people. Let's call for credibility and standards in the media and in the campaigns. I do not approve of my tax money paying for any of this, and I demand reform--from all sides, as well as better citizenship.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Saving the Children?
Who is saving th children? Again, we get a glimpse of hell, when we read about kids in war-torn countries, or where there is famine or political unrest, and the humanitarian aid workers who trade food for sex. These kids are growing up associating the word "humanitarian" with one who abuses, someone to fear.
Save the Children is calling for a global watch dog, for some group to overlook these aid associations. This is a positive step, but it should not be like buying an umbrella and not worrying about the rain. There also needs to be some backstepping to assist those children and families who have been abused and exploited for years, but I hate to think of yet another group going in with the intent to aid and then further abusing. I'm pessimistic, yes. But, in the case of child abuse, I think that dewy eyes and idealism are out of place because we (meaning all of those people who are living without war in our backyards, famine, and political unrest) need to see the hell, the dirt, and inhumanity of what it must be like to be hurt by people who are supposed to help.
Save the Children is calling for a global watch dog, for some group to overlook these aid associations. This is a positive step, but it should not be like buying an umbrella and not worrying about the rain. There also needs to be some backstepping to assist those children and families who have been abused and exploited for years, but I hate to think of yet another group going in with the intent to aid and then further abusing. I'm pessimistic, yes. But, in the case of child abuse, I think that dewy eyes and idealism are out of place because we (meaning all of those people who are living without war in our backyards, famine, and political unrest) need to see the hell, the dirt, and inhumanity of what it must be like to be hurt by people who are supposed to help.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Sam Adams (beer) is gay?
Last night, while enjoying pizza, and, ironically a Sam Adams Lager, with my partner, I overheard the following comment.
"Oh, nothing says gay like Sam Adams"
I asked A if he heard this comment, and he did. So, it wasn't my imagination.
So, in spite of living in a state with a mandated anti-bullying law that includes sexual orientation (since September 2007), this kind of language is something this man finds to be acceptable to shout out.
Across the patio, I sent dirty looks, but the guy didn't notice, and even if he did, it means nothing because he doesn't even realize what he's done. Similar to reprimanding a dog for eating a shoe an hour later. They just don't get it.
I told A that if we were sitting there with a gay child, I would have no problem with walking over and explaining that his comment is not only rude but hurtful and unacceptable. My statement makes me sad and disappointed in myself.
If we want to make change, we can't tell our selves, well, if a person from "that" group is around, then I will take action. That's not enough. Heterosexism needs to be addressed whether or not I perceive gay individuals to be part of the group or not. This is similar to the argument that a classroom teacher need not address race if there are not children of color in her class. We all have sexual orientations (and they are not as polarized as our society portrays) and we all have race.
Upon further research, I found that, indeed, Sam Adams IS gay. He's the new mayor of Portland Oregon, and he's openly gay. Maybe this guy was trying to discuss current politics, but I really don't think so.
Oh, congrats Sam Adams (the mayor).
"Oh, nothing says gay like Sam Adams"
I asked A if he heard this comment, and he did. So, it wasn't my imagination.
So, in spite of living in a state with a mandated anti-bullying law that includes sexual orientation (since September 2007), this kind of language is something this man finds to be acceptable to shout out.
Across the patio, I sent dirty looks, but the guy didn't notice, and even if he did, it means nothing because he doesn't even realize what he's done. Similar to reprimanding a dog for eating a shoe an hour later. They just don't get it.
I told A that if we were sitting there with a gay child, I would have no problem with walking over and explaining that his comment is not only rude but hurtful and unacceptable. My statement makes me sad and disappointed in myself.
If we want to make change, we can't tell our selves, well, if a person from "that" group is around, then I will take action. That's not enough. Heterosexism needs to be addressed whether or not I perceive gay individuals to be part of the group or not. This is similar to the argument that a classroom teacher need not address race if there are not children of color in her class. We all have sexual orientations (and they are not as polarized as our society portrays) and we all have race.
Upon further research, I found that, indeed, Sam Adams IS gay. He's the new mayor of Portland Oregon, and he's openly gay. Maybe this guy was trying to discuss current politics, but I really don't think so.
Oh, congrats Sam Adams (the mayor).
Friday, May 16, 2008
Prosecutor Accountability--No Crook Left Behind
Good cop and bad cop. Sure, we've seen this. Though we count on peace officers to be about peace and serving our communities, sometimes there are bad ones. They beat people up, profile according to race, plant evidence. We've also heard of bad priest and bad teachers, maybe we had one or five. These people who have roles in our lives of the utmost importance. When they screw up, we have to count on the state or some entity for accountability, for protection, and for justice. I'm not talking about Salem Witch Trials here. Bad cops, bad priests, and bad teachers should get a fair trial, evidence must be presented, and there should be a ruling body or bodies to make judgments. Checks and balances, even the president is not above these.
Now, prosecutors are no less fallible than cops or teachers, even priests. Yet, we have a fear of prosecuting prosecutors? People may not sign up for the job because they fear prison if they make a blunder? Well, no kidding. How about being an ordinary citizen and going to prison for "blundering"--happening to date someone who was raped and killed, happening to be balck in Texas, happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. James Woodard went to prison for 27 years for the crime, which he did not commit. He didn't even really blunder (though his alibi was that he was cheating on said girlfriend, so that is a sort of blunder).
Yes, prosecutors should face prison if they purposefully hide or doctor evidence. That is wrong and it breaks the law, and they are not above the law. Of course, this strikes prosecutors with a bit of fear, and it should if they have broken the law, screwed up the system, and allowed innocent people to go to jail.
Now, prosecutors are no less fallible than cops or teachers, even priests. Yet, we have a fear of prosecuting prosecutors? People may not sign up for the job because they fear prison if they make a blunder? Well, no kidding. How about being an ordinary citizen and going to prison for "blundering"--happening to date someone who was raped and killed, happening to be balck in Texas, happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. James Woodard went to prison for 27 years for the crime, which he did not commit. He didn't even really blunder (though his alibi was that he was cheating on said girlfriend, so that is a sort of blunder).
Yes, prosecutors should face prison if they purposefully hide or doctor evidence. That is wrong and it breaks the law, and they are not above the law. Of course, this strikes prosecutors with a bit of fear, and it should if they have broken the law, screwed up the system, and allowed innocent people to go to jail.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Immigration Busts in Iowa
For weeks in the Waterloo/Cedar Falls area, there has been speculation about what is going on at the Cattle Congress, a sort of fairgrounds that hosted the World Famous Lipizzaner Stallions a couple weeks ago. The locals have been noting the covered windows, the trailors, the feds, and rumors had it that there would be a bust. Well, they were right.
There was a bust, perhaps the biggest in US history. For several years, Iowa has progressed, nay regressed, into anti-immigration policies. We have the English-only law, where politicians and the like have been sued or reprimanded for providing voter registration forms and other documents online in languages other than English. There have been rumblings in the state house about getting "tough" on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. And, more and more, in the editorial columns, there are rants about how the illegals are hurting Iowa. Now, we have the bust.
I see this bust as just that but on the part of the Iowan citizenry, as a huge step toward xenophobia and intolerance, and a general lack of humanity and reality. Just like the "War on Drugs" and the like have failed, the war on immigration, legal or not, is an act of trying to fight the symptoms rather than the sickness. The state and the country are dependent on labor, and a lot of labor they depend upon comes from people from Central and South America. The sickness comes in when we forget to see laborers as people, people with families, with needs, and with few choices. The sickness comes when we see "them" causing troubles and as "taking from Iowa" when we have built an economy based on "their" exploitation. That's sick, to blame people when they are basically invited in (and have been, on and off for the last 150 years).
Dear Iowa Representatives: first, get educated about the history of these groups of people. Second, how many languages do you speak and how many hours do you work with no insurance and no community respect? Right, and then think about how hard it is to learn a language well enough to read tax forms or legal documents. Third, start at the source. If we truly are going to bust the businesses, let's take those fat cats to the cattle congress holding cells, away from their families, and let's figure out humane and logical answers for people who are working hard and in need of help. Sure, they have some "blame" but let's get the whole picture here and look at the power structures involved.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
The Tangle of Tango
We don't want to upset kids. We don't want them to lose their innocence by reading about sex or murder or how bad slavery must have felt to those enslaved. But why not? Banning or challenging books like Tango Makes Three or I know Why the Caged Bird Sings are actions that waste time and inhibit productive learning.
Getting upset is part of life. So are slavery, homophobia, and humans making bad choices part of life. When children read books about these issues in schools and with parents, this is a good place for them to get informed. A teacher or a parent can explain things, simple definitions and the idea that people are different. It may be upsetting for a child to learn that the US supported slavery and racism, it upsets me. However, if the book is part of a curriculum, then teachers can provide a context and critical thinking tools to apply to lesson. Kids can become educated and get past being upset to being informed and capable of thinking about issues and taking actions--like reading more, voting, telling a school friend not to say "that's so gay."
Telling lies to children or keeping information from them does not protect them. It keeps them ignorant. Ignorance leads to not knowing or understanding people, which leads to stereotyping and saying and doing hurtful things. It perpetuates the uglies of racism, heterosexism, and sexism.
There are many excuses that people use to ban and challenge books and curriculums. People don't trust schools, they don't trust teachers, and they don't trust their children to be thinking and critical beings. Tango is real folks, and Angelou was raped as a child. These things happened in the world. Kids can find out about them on their own, from the internet or TV, or they can be in a school setting that has extreme oversight and a mission to uphold the First Amendment rights of students--to educate all students. Instead of calling for a banning of books, I think parents need to reassess these excuses and understand more perspectives than their own fears. Parents can learn to build trust for schools, teachers, and their own children. They can also be learners in this process.
If we ban, we don't learn. Learning about something does not mean that we throw away our beliefs and values. It means we better understand our beliefs and values, and they become more meaningful to us.
Getting upset is part of life. So are slavery, homophobia, and humans making bad choices part of life. When children read books about these issues in schools and with parents, this is a good place for them to get informed. A teacher or a parent can explain things, simple definitions and the idea that people are different. It may be upsetting for a child to learn that the US supported slavery and racism, it upsets me. However, if the book is part of a curriculum, then teachers can provide a context and critical thinking tools to apply to lesson. Kids can become educated and get past being upset to being informed and capable of thinking about issues and taking actions--like reading more, voting, telling a school friend not to say "that's so gay."
Telling lies to children or keeping information from them does not protect them. It keeps them ignorant. Ignorance leads to not knowing or understanding people, which leads to stereotyping and saying and doing hurtful things. It perpetuates the uglies of racism, heterosexism, and sexism.
There are many excuses that people use to ban and challenge books and curriculums. People don't trust schools, they don't trust teachers, and they don't trust their children to be thinking and critical beings. Tango is real folks, and Angelou was raped as a child. These things happened in the world. Kids can find out about them on their own, from the internet or TV, or they can be in a school setting that has extreme oversight and a mission to uphold the First Amendment rights of students--to educate all students. Instead of calling for a banning of books, I think parents need to reassess these excuses and understand more perspectives than their own fears. Parents can learn to build trust for schools, teachers, and their own children. They can also be learners in this process.
If we ban, we don't learn. Learning about something does not mean that we throw away our beliefs and values. It means we better understand our beliefs and values, and they become more meaningful to us.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Cronyism--but still no apple for the teacher
I love the word cronyism because it is fun to say and write. As an "ism" it is one that, under another name, is perfectly innocuous. When we "network" and cash in our social capital by knowing the right people and getting our feet into doors that would otherwise remain closed, this is seen as smart and common sense. When we call it cronyism, it takes on a more illicit and morally corrupt connotation.
Is the "Reading First" program cronyism? Is it the way the system works?
As someone who has been in the college teaching profession (granted on the low end of adjunct, lecturer, or TA), I have seen that textbooks are a racket, albeit a racket in a free market. They are out to make money, while teachers and administrators are not supposed to care about money, at least not for themselves. So, is it cronyism when schools take on curriculum guides and texts that their administrators push, when those administrators have ties to publishing houses? Sure, it is, especially when those administrators get kick backs. What about the cronyism of not coming through with funding for schools? There are those in office who vote to cut funding, and many of those votes are based on the officials' obligations to lobbyists. How can we criticize programs like "Reading First" or Affirmative Action when the funding and support has been so fleeting and inconsistent? How can people promote materials with any validity if they are in bed with the publishers?
To the point, finally. We have fault on several ends here, people. We can't make good decisions when we do not account for these conflicts of interest. We can't make good decisions when we do not have reliable evidence and when we don't give things more than a year to work out. We can't make up a program to close the achievement gap between black and white students that will work within a year because the underlying causes run much deeper than how we teach reading in the first grade. Let's stop the double handed blaming education for societal failures and relying on it to solve the social issues we face when it is one of the many cogs in the giant machine of the United States.
I think the question of cronyism is a good one and one that we need to address when we get proposals for funding, for cuts, and for "the answer to the problem." We also need to get real about the purpose and scope of schools. And, let's hear from more than publishing companies with their hands in the cookie jars, politicians, school board fat cats, and President Bush about what works in schools. Um, when was the last time they were in schools for other than product placement and election photo shots?
Is the "Reading First" program cronyism? Is it the way the system works?
As someone who has been in the college teaching profession (granted on the low end of adjunct, lecturer, or TA), I have seen that textbooks are a racket, albeit a racket in a free market. They are out to make money, while teachers and administrators are not supposed to care about money, at least not for themselves. So, is it cronyism when schools take on curriculum guides and texts that their administrators push, when those administrators have ties to publishing houses? Sure, it is, especially when those administrators get kick backs. What about the cronyism of not coming through with funding for schools? There are those in office who vote to cut funding, and many of those votes are based on the officials' obligations to lobbyists. How can we criticize programs like "Reading First" or Affirmative Action when the funding and support has been so fleeting and inconsistent? How can people promote materials with any validity if they are in bed with the publishers?
To the point, finally. We have fault on several ends here, people. We can't make good decisions when we do not account for these conflicts of interest. We can't make good decisions when we do not have reliable evidence and when we don't give things more than a year to work out. We can't make up a program to close the achievement gap between black and white students that will work within a year because the underlying causes run much deeper than how we teach reading in the first grade. Let's stop the double handed blaming education for societal failures and relying on it to solve the social issues we face when it is one of the many cogs in the giant machine of the United States.
I think the question of cronyism is a good one and one that we need to address when we get proposals for funding, for cuts, and for "the answer to the problem." We also need to get real about the purpose and scope of schools. And, let's hear from more than publishing companies with their hands in the cookie jars, politicians, school board fat cats, and President Bush about what works in schools. Um, when was the last time they were in schools for other than product placement and election photo shots?
Friday, April 11, 2008
Leno and his "dumb thing to say"
Jay Leno admits that his comment to Ryan Phillipe was "wrong" and a "dumb thing to say." I'm not sure what else he said because the press is happy enough with those snippets. I'm not happy with them. Neither was Ryan Phillipe, who let it be known, on the spot, that he did not think the comment from Leno was funny.
He's a funny guy, right? His job is to tell jokes. His friend and announcer John Melendez swears by Leno's goodness and that the fault is with the people who can't just laugh with Jay--because he's a funny guy. Melendez, who writes and acts for the show One, Two, Many (a man trying to get the girl of his dreams), thinks that "in this day and age, everyone is so PC." Apparently, Melendez and Leno are saving us from the horrors of being politically correct with their use of heterosexist and sexist jokes.
PC. It's a funny little acronym that people throw around, usually when they or people they relate to say something really stupid and mean and they don't want to be criticized for it. "I'm practicing my freedom of speech, and you're just being PC."
Here's my problem. PC is not the point. I bet Phillipe did not have his reaction and response because he was worried about being PC. In schools, educators don't reprimand students for saying, "that's so gay" because we want them to be politically correct.
PC is not the liberal mantra, Melendez (and whoever else). In fact, the whole idea of PC is for people who want to blab without thinking and think without thinking. It's for people to excuse themselves for being undeservedly superior and taking and using that superiority to keep other people down. To claim something is PC is to legitimize language and actions that have been quantitatively and qualitatively proven to hurt all people involved and even those down the road.
Maybe I'm more furious with Melendez and his attempt to clasp to his "right" to bash people than I am mad at Leno. I'm disappointed with Leno for not going a bit deeper with his apology and taking some further action with himself and with his environment. If things like that fall out of his mouth on accident and he truly thinks it was a wrong thing to say, then he needs to do some serious inventory of his thinking and his beliefs. Then, he needs to take some action, like telling Melendez to shut his trap and that he was wrong because such language puts down a whole group of people and further legitimizes homophobia in our country. He needs to do this for his own karma and for the people out there who think he's funny and who listen to him without questioning, "Wow... That is so something I don't want to do."
He's a funny guy, right? His job is to tell jokes. His friend and announcer John Melendez swears by Leno's goodness and that the fault is with the people who can't just laugh with Jay--because he's a funny guy. Melendez, who writes and acts for the show One, Two, Many (a man trying to get the girl of his dreams), thinks that "in this day and age, everyone is so PC." Apparently, Melendez and Leno are saving us from the horrors of being politically correct with their use of heterosexist and sexist jokes.
PC. It's a funny little acronym that people throw around, usually when they or people they relate to say something really stupid and mean and they don't want to be criticized for it. "I'm practicing my freedom of speech, and you're just being PC."
Here's my problem. PC is not the point. I bet Phillipe did not have his reaction and response because he was worried about being PC. In schools, educators don't reprimand students for saying, "that's so gay" because we want them to be politically correct.
PC is not the liberal mantra, Melendez (and whoever else). In fact, the whole idea of PC is for people who want to blab without thinking and think without thinking. It's for people to excuse themselves for being undeservedly superior and taking and using that superiority to keep other people down. To claim something is PC is to legitimize language and actions that have been quantitatively and qualitatively proven to hurt all people involved and even those down the road.
Maybe I'm more furious with Melendez and his attempt to clasp to his "right" to bash people than I am mad at Leno. I'm disappointed with Leno for not going a bit deeper with his apology and taking some further action with himself and with his environment. If things like that fall out of his mouth on accident and he truly thinks it was a wrong thing to say, then he needs to do some serious inventory of his thinking and his beliefs. Then, he needs to take some action, like telling Melendez to shut his trap and that he was wrong because such language puts down a whole group of people and further legitimizes homophobia in our country. He needs to do this for his own karma and for the people out there who think he's funny and who listen to him without questioning, "Wow... That is so something I don't want to do."
Sunday, March 16, 2008
OKLAHOMA-phobia?
Another public official, Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma), opens her mouth and inserts not just one foot but two feet.
Foot number one--She, like King (R-Iowa), ignorantly equates Islam with terrorism. Representative Kern, there have been a number of Christians, even Baptists, who have committed crimes, like murder, rape, terrorism. Yet, most look at these people who commit the crimes as aberrations, OK? They do not ascribe the crimes to the person's faith, even if that person were to swear that they committed the crimes in the name of their faith. OK? No, it's not "OK."
It is offensive, upsetting, and frustrating for a group of people to be continually maligned in this way, and by people who should be thoughtful and educated. To be Muslim, especially post-9-11, is something you do not understand, nor do you even attempt to understand. Your fear of what you do not understand is very clear in your comments. Get your foot out of your mouth and get educated, Rep. Kern.
Foot number two--scare tactics and the blatant misuse and scurvy misinterpretation of the Bible to condemn and incite hatred for a group of people. According to Kern, homosexuals will lead to the downfall of our society, as they have in other societies. OK? No, it's not "OK."
We live in a society where the Bible is not the law of the land. Claiming Christian faith is fine, but it does not mean that you now have some kind of built in moral thermometer with which you are allowed, by your faith, to judge others. Look to US history and see that our country has a history of subjugating people while still claiming that it upholds Christianity and the individual rights of all. Except, it seems, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian groups, Mexicans, and women.
My comment to feet in her mouth Rep. Sally Kern is this--Do not speak for all Oklahomans, nor all Baptists, nor all Christians. You do not speak the truth for everyone in these groups and pretending that you do is more than troublesome. By trying to use these groups to back up your comments and your beliefs, you take liberties that you do not have.
If you are against gay marriage, then claim it as a stance you take based on YOUR interpretation of the Bible and not the beliefs of Christians, Baptists, or even Republicans. You do not have that authority and your arguments fail. If you want to argue your stance own it and see where it takes you.
Foot number one--She, like King (R-Iowa), ignorantly equates Islam with terrorism. Representative Kern, there have been a number of Christians, even Baptists, who have committed crimes, like murder, rape, terrorism. Yet, most look at these people who commit the crimes as aberrations, OK? They do not ascribe the crimes to the person's faith, even if that person were to swear that they committed the crimes in the name of their faith. OK? No, it's not "OK."
It is offensive, upsetting, and frustrating for a group of people to be continually maligned in this way, and by people who should be thoughtful and educated. To be Muslim, especially post-9-11, is something you do not understand, nor do you even attempt to understand. Your fear of what you do not understand is very clear in your comments. Get your foot out of your mouth and get educated, Rep. Kern.
Foot number two--scare tactics and the blatant misuse and scurvy misinterpretation of the Bible to condemn and incite hatred for a group of people. According to Kern, homosexuals will lead to the downfall of our society, as they have in other societies. OK? No, it's not "OK."
We live in a society where the Bible is not the law of the land. Claiming Christian faith is fine, but it does not mean that you now have some kind of built in moral thermometer with which you are allowed, by your faith, to judge others. Look to US history and see that our country has a history of subjugating people while still claiming that it upholds Christianity and the individual rights of all. Except, it seems, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian groups, Mexicans, and women.
My comment to feet in her mouth Rep. Sally Kern is this--Do not speak for all Oklahomans, nor all Baptists, nor all Christians. You do not speak the truth for everyone in these groups and pretending that you do is more than troublesome. By trying to use these groups to back up your comments and your beliefs, you take liberties that you do not have.
If you are against gay marriage, then claim it as a stance you take based on YOUR interpretation of the Bible and not the beliefs of Christians, Baptists, or even Republicans. You do not have that authority and your arguments fail. If you want to argue your stance own it and see where it takes you.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
King (R-Iowa) needs to get in touch
I have a personal problem with people speaking for me. While reading the editorials in the Des Moines Register or else where, I've seen people write "We Iowans" and "people in Iowa" and I'm bothered. Though Iowa seems to be a not so diverse state in terms of most people being old and white, there are diverse ideas here. I do NOT agree with King and his predictions about "the terrorists" celebrating Obama's election as president (if that happens). I live in Iowa, and I do not think this way and I know others who are just as appalled to find that we live in a state where a public official can be so dumb.
King (R-Iowa), you have a problem. You go out in public, without thought or evidence, and make a proclamation meant to incite misconceptions about Obama. Come on, King. Can you get past the stupid scare tactics of accusing Obama of being something he's not? He does not identify as a Muslim, and I think HE, more than you or anyone else, is the most valid source for that info. Secondly, if he did identify as Muslim, that is fine. We are in a country where people can be Muslim. Freedom to worship? Ring a bell?
More importantly, can you get educated about the Muslim faith and stop equating it with terrorism. You should be striped of your position as a state representative if you think you can speak for Iowa or even your district in such an uneducated and divisive way. You are not a credit to your party, your state, or your public position.
Ignorance, uneducated blathering to get your way, feeding on people's fears and prejudices--though you may think I'm writing about terrorists, I am really referring to your comments and your inability to admit you're wrong and that you said some really stupid things.
Don't speak for me when you speak lies and fear mongering.
King (R-Iowa), you have a problem. You go out in public, without thought or evidence, and make a proclamation meant to incite misconceptions about Obama. Come on, King. Can you get past the stupid scare tactics of accusing Obama of being something he's not? He does not identify as a Muslim, and I think HE, more than you or anyone else, is the most valid source for that info. Secondly, if he did identify as Muslim, that is fine. We are in a country where people can be Muslim. Freedom to worship? Ring a bell?
More importantly, can you get educated about the Muslim faith and stop equating it with terrorism. You should be striped of your position as a state representative if you think you can speak for Iowa or even your district in such an uneducated and divisive way. You are not a credit to your party, your state, or your public position.
Ignorance, uneducated blathering to get your way, feeding on people's fears and prejudices--though you may think I'm writing about terrorists, I am really referring to your comments and your inability to admit you're wrong and that you said some really stupid things.
Don't speak for me when you speak lies and fear mongering.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Stuff White People Like
A friend sent me a link. Thank you, friend.
Stuff White People Like is a blog, and it has initiated heated debate on within its own comments and discussion on other sites, like Feministe and the LA Times. I love this.
A huge lesson I attempt to teach my students (who will someday be teachers) is that everywhere around us, there are these messages and ideas. And, though we may want to brush them off as "oh, just Disney cartoons" or "it's too uncomfortable for me to broach in a classroom," we really need to educate ourselves and become critical participants in our society in order to be good teachers. So, how does a blog like this fit into multicultural teacher education with a focus on social justice and transformation? Good question. And, a good answer is that this blog and all of the comments, debate, anger, hilarity--all of it--speak to our macro-culture. We get insights into what people think it means to be white, to be racist, to be middle class.
Then, we need to be critical, to wade through the emotions, the "evidence," our personal biases, and our own ignorance of experience and come to some conclusions. How does this fit into how we think and how we teach?
As a teacher of college students, it gives me a view into the possibilities of how people think and what they say when they are anonymous online. It provides a insight into people's language, how they define and use words like "racist". And, all of this informs my teaching and my own learning.
Stuff White People Like is a blog, and it has initiated heated debate on within its own comments and discussion on other sites, like Feministe and the LA Times. I love this.
A huge lesson I attempt to teach my students (who will someday be teachers) is that everywhere around us, there are these messages and ideas. And, though we may want to brush them off as "oh, just Disney cartoons" or "it's too uncomfortable for me to broach in a classroom," we really need to educate ourselves and become critical participants in our society in order to be good teachers. So, how does a blog like this fit into multicultural teacher education with a focus on social justice and transformation? Good question. And, a good answer is that this blog and all of the comments, debate, anger, hilarity--all of it--speak to our macro-culture. We get insights into what people think it means to be white, to be racist, to be middle class.
Then, we need to be critical, to wade through the emotions, the "evidence," our personal biases, and our own ignorance of experience and come to some conclusions. How does this fit into how we think and how we teach?
As a teacher of college students, it gives me a view into the possibilities of how people think and what they say when they are anonymous online. It provides a insight into people's language, how they define and use words like "racist". And, all of this informs my teaching and my own learning.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Marriage in Iowa
In a place that can reek of stereotypes (the smell of hogs) and assumptions about people being set in their ways, we see a stream of light emerging from the clouds. Iowa (not Idaho), yes, that caucus state where the candidates hang out before the primaries, riding tractors and kissing babies. It seems it is on the map now for more than political aggrandizing, or is it? Can we really count on this ruling or is it one more political trick to draw eyes on Iowa?
We recently had a judge rule that ruled that Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. We got the reactions that we thought we’d get. Romney jumped in and rode the wagon of defending marriage, of course specifying that it is between one man and ONE woman (in a bid to override the taint of recent polygamy/child-bride trials have on his own faith). Clinton (I refuse to call her Hillary for obvious reasons. If they are not obvious, then think about the any of the times another candidate or president has been referred to by their given names. Not a sign of respect) and Obama (again, I will not refer to him by his first name) had similar, expected reactions. The states should mire through this issue and the federal government should keep its nose out of it. Hmmm. But what do they really think?
When one thinks of traditional republican beliefs, isn’t one of them less government interference? This turn around is important to note because it is time to call into question blind following of either party. My aunt votes republican (because her husband does and because they listen to AM talk radio at all hours). Never once have I heard her argue about an issue without first qualifying that it is what someone else believes in (namely a republican). My personal political decisions are (as much as possible) based on issues. I know for a fact that even though I am registered as a democrat, I do not always agree with the party line. In fact, there have been a few times when I have agreed with President Bush (note, I did not refer to him by his given name or his middle initial).
From what I’ve read about the ruling, the judge made a decision based on an interpretation of the Constitution and one that has precedent. I don’t believe he mentioned, as he ruled, his political affiliation or his religious affiliation, and that is right in a country that is based on a constitution that speaks for "freedom" and choice. The reasons for banning gay marriage—family values, namely—are based on faith, and that has no place in a court.Oh, and is Robert Hanson running for president? I might consider giving him my vote.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Grandma’s Cookie Advice
A year ago, I lost my grandmother, and she is one who touched my soul and taught me. Her love for education guided me toward teaching and moving along with my degrees.
She always proclaimed to be a plain-spoken woman, with simple needs and wants. One of her customs was to cut out those cliche advice columns and Reader's Digest pieces to tape to her office wall or carry in her wallet. After she died, we found so many of these timeworn, yellow clippings. I read them all, trying to see what she got out of them, why she kept them when they were just common sense. And, I think that's the point.
We all make our own meanings from what we observe and read, and the common sense appealed to her sense of keeping things simple and living in the now. My grandmother's goal, according to these clippings, was to seek personal happiness through her own devices and to be conscious of this quest every day and with every action and word directed toward others. My grandmother was a country school (one-room) teacher, a farm wife (farm work partner), a mother, a 4H leader, and a newspaper columnist.
I want to share one of my grandmother's clippings, which happens to be one written about her. I hope the simple logic shines through and that her experience and knowledge continue to help people. I also include my great-grandmother's sugar cookie recipe, passed down to me from my grandmother.
Another piece of advice comes from E. H. who says she has been cooking and baking about 60 years now. She’s 72.
1 cup sugar
1 cup butter
1 egg
1/2 tsp soda
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp vanilla
about 3 cups flour (adjusted for the larger egg)
Oven Temp 350 degrees
Combine all ingredients. Shape into rolls, slice, and bake.
Or, form into balls and use a glass creamer (or other cut glass
item) to press a shape into the balls. Dip the creamer bottom
into sugar and press gently.
Vonnegut passes, No Timequake.
F.Y.I.--The Ph.D. is going well, for any who care to know. I'm teaching a fabulous class to assist pre-service teachers in overcoming stereotypes, assumptions, and bias in their classrooms. I get to teach them about social justice and open their eyes to see that there IS racism, discrimination and separate is STILL not equal. So, I've been busy, and I've missed opportunities to write about Gonzales, Wolfie, Imus, and some of the other people who tip my boat.
There is one guy I need to write a bit about, however, and that is Mr. Kurt Vonnegut. He tipped my book (in a positive way) back when I was an undergraduate. He is the inspiration for this blog and much of my English major thinking in the past decade. I'm not an English major anymore--moved to Education--but Vonnegut holds a place in my heart. His ability to be brash and honest, while still using a sense of logic, is what I admire.
He was, above all, a human. A Humanist. He drank (a lot), he hated his former son-in-law, and he lusted after women. He also wrote like a fiend and wrote to make a statement rather than to please an audience, yet he did care about people and what they do to themselves and to others. Unlike certain people who use language carelessly (i.e. Imus), Vonnegut carried a mastery of saying or writing his point with flare and innuendo, but not with malice or ignorance.
For the summer, amidst my other reading toward Ph.D. stuff, I intend to revisit my favorite Vonnegut books.
April 11, 2007, Vonnegut died. This is also my twin brothers' birthday. So it goes.
Love, Circe
There is one guy I need to write a bit about, however, and that is Mr. Kurt Vonnegut. He tipped my book (in a positive way) back when I was an undergraduate. He is the inspiration for this blog and much of my English major thinking in the past decade. I'm not an English major anymore--moved to Education--but Vonnegut holds a place in my heart. His ability to be brash and honest, while still using a sense of logic, is what I admire.
He was, above all, a human. A Humanist. He drank (a lot), he hated his former son-in-law, and he lusted after women. He also wrote like a fiend and wrote to make a statement rather than to please an audience, yet he did care about people and what they do to themselves and to others. Unlike certain people who use language carelessly (i.e. Imus), Vonnegut carried a mastery of saying or writing his point with flare and innuendo, but not with malice or ignorance.
For the summer, amidst my other reading toward Ph.D. stuff, I intend to revisit my favorite Vonnegut books.
April 11, 2007, Vonnegut died. This is also my twin brothers' birthday. So it goes.
Love, Circe
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Dennis Miller--How his "rhetoric" degrades free speech
It's been a while since I've written. This fall, I started my Ph.D. program, and so I've been busy. It's too bad that what moves me to blog is Dennis Miller's insensitive, uneducated, and unruly "free speech."
Fox news gets such a bad rap, and it really deserves it. I understand commentary and editorials, but the point is to have someone intelligent who can speak up with views from all sides for the sake of "readers" who might not get the whole story. THe purpose of editorial writing is not to encourage mindless relativism or political correctness. Good editorial writing digs deep with reason, ethics, and EVIDENCE to better inform people and make them THINK before they make up their minds.
But, Fox allows Miller to sound off and blast people, bash a religion, make unintelligible analogies, and present a picture of racist "rhetoric" in the name of "free speech."
Dennis Miller, you have free speech, as do all people who live in the US (including Muslim imams). We also have freedom of religion. Please do not speak for me. You are wrong to act in such a way, and I denounce your words.
'Real Free Speech' Dennis Miller sounds off on ‘Imams on a plane’
Friday, May 19, 2006
Breaking the "Code"
Though I have not read the book (when it first came out, I thought it was like those creepy Left Behind books, so I stayed far, far away), I plan on seeing The Da Vinci Code. This is the rebel in me. I have been waiting for the movie the minute the go-Jesus people started making a fuss and when I learned that Marry M is NOT portrayed as a biblical hooker (why do the fundies like thinking she was a prostitute?).
Yes, I will read the book, eventually (I was an English major, so I can read anything). But, I can't wait to go to the theatre and see if there are people protesting. It would be so cool if one of them got so incited that he stabbed me in the side or cut up my forehead with thorns from throwing roses at me. How symbolic and ironic. It won't happen. I've never once been to a "racy" or "evil" movie where people protest.
You know, as much as people bash Harry Potter flicks or The Da Vinci Code, it still makes no sense to me. Where are they when those bad teenage horror movies come out? There's more evil and senselessness in those movies than in a kid movie that teaches moral lessons or a thriller that has never claimed to be true (too bad). I heard someone (on the radio as I woke up, so there's no chance of me remembering a name, sorry) make the point that "If their faith is so weak that this movie will turn their faith, then they had crappy faith to begin with" (or something similar to those words:)
That's right. If people are dumb enough to believe what they watch in a movie or on TV, then it is the fault of Bush and crew. (Well, probably Chenney and the "W" crew.) We worry about spying on the phone? Well, this is much more insidious. They tell us what to believe everyday (note--FOX News). So, of course, that technology could be in the hands of these Hollywood-type people, too. No, it's probably the gays again or the immigrants who want us to change how we see Jesus. You know, as a nice regular guy.
Yes, I will read the book, eventually (I was an English major, so I can read anything). But, I can't wait to go to the theatre and see if there are people protesting. It would be so cool if one of them got so incited that he stabbed me in the side or cut up my forehead with thorns from throwing roses at me. How symbolic and ironic. It won't happen. I've never once been to a "racy" or "evil" movie where people protest.
You know, as much as people bash Harry Potter flicks or The Da Vinci Code, it still makes no sense to me. Where are they when those bad teenage horror movies come out? There's more evil and senselessness in those movies than in a kid movie that teaches moral lessons or a thriller that has never claimed to be true (too bad). I heard someone (on the radio as I woke up, so there's no chance of me remembering a name, sorry) make the point that "If their faith is so weak that this movie will turn their faith, then they had crappy faith to begin with" (or something similar to those words:)
That's right. If people are dumb enough to believe what they watch in a movie or on TV, then it is the fault of Bush and crew. (Well, probably Chenney and the "W" crew.) We worry about spying on the phone? Well, this is much more insidious. They tell us what to believe everyday (note--FOX News). So, of course, that technology could be in the hands of these Hollywood-type people, too. No, it's probably the gays again or the immigrants who want us to change how we see Jesus. You know, as a nice regular guy.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Bush loves Blair.
So, so funny. Bush/Blair love affair.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8845429906560840314&pl=true
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8845429906560840314&pl=true
"Now, George, say you're sorry"--Words Never Uttered by Barb Bush
You know, for someone with such alleged humility, Mr. Bush sure doesn't know how to accept the idea that he could be wrong (that or he thinks we're all dumb enough to believe him if he tells the same lie over and over). Mr. Bush, you went over heads to institute this wire tapping, you broke rules and custom, and you were wrong to do this. We ALL know this, even you.
You're avoiding the issue, Mr. President. Yes, you can refuse to apologize because you think you can justify your wire tapping, especially by using the terms "terrrorist" or "al-Qaida." You can refuse. But you need to understand that this refusal to admit your wrong doing and to apologize to the people for overstepping your bounds and then fibbing sends some pretty wicked messages.
So, basically, when you stand there and give this kind of speech, this is what we REALLY hear.
1. "Men in power can lie as needed. I'm a man in power. I can lie whenever I must to save my own ass."
2. "If I figure out a way to scare people, I can use that fear to justify what I do, even when I know (or later find out) that I am wrong."
3. "I'm never wrong."
4. "Presidents rule the world, especially me. I can make choices without planning ahead or getting permission."
5. " I protect my own people (his cronies, not the American people), until they get caught, and then I simply explain that I had no idea they were so bad" (Hmm. Sounds a bit like daddy Bush about Iran Contra).
6. And, I'm out of here in a couple years, so who cares if the world blows up. As long as Texas is on the map, everything goes."
You're avoiding the issue, Mr. President. Yes, you can refuse to apologize because you think you can justify your wire tapping, especially by using the terms "terrrorist" or "al-Qaida." You can refuse. But you need to understand that this refusal to admit your wrong doing and to apologize to the people for overstepping your bounds and then fibbing sends some pretty wicked messages.
So, basically, when you stand there and give this kind of speech, this is what we REALLY hear.
1. "Men in power can lie as needed. I'm a man in power. I can lie whenever I must to save my own ass."
2. "If I figure out a way to scare people, I can use that fear to justify what I do, even when I know (or later find out) that I am wrong."
3. "I'm never wrong."
4. "Presidents rule the world, especially me. I can make choices without planning ahead or getting permission."
5. " I protect my own people (his cronies, not the American people), until they get caught, and then I simply explain that I had no idea they were so bad" (Hmm. Sounds a bit like daddy Bush about Iran Contra).
6. And, I'm out of here in a couple years, so who cares if the world blows up. As long as Texas is on the map, everything goes."
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Predator Alert--Sex fiend in Homeland Security Office
Well, back in July, 2003, Homeland Security created "Operation Predator" to help combat sexual predators, removing them, and working on the tourism trade in exploited children around the world. I think I can say without too much more evidence that Operation Predator needs some work, and so does Homeland Security (HS).
Yesterday's story about Brian Doyle is the evidence. Here is a guy, pretty high up in the Homeland Security megasaurus; Google him, and he is always making statements for HS. Granted, I don't think (after a bit of research) that Doyle had much to do with Operation Predator (OP), but the OP sure didn't have much to do with this guy. Isn't it kind of ironic (and criminal) that a sheriff found this guy out and not the HS? Do they do background checks at all? For all of their spying, they sure missed the boat on this guy. He's the wolf in sheep's clothing, and this shows one of the many holes in HS.
Are they so busy poking into the lives of innocent Arab Americans, tourists from Hollland, and border issues? Set the threat advisory up a notch, HS, and let everyone know that this is internal.
Look no further than your own buidling, people. Do us all a favor and "remove" the predators from within first, and why not get a third party to do this work, like, say, the sheriff from Polk county, just because, well, we don't really trust your work.
Yesterday's story about Brian Doyle is the evidence. Here is a guy, pretty high up in the Homeland Security megasaurus; Google him, and he is always making statements for HS. Granted, I don't think (after a bit of research) that Doyle had much to do with Operation Predator (OP), but the OP sure didn't have much to do with this guy. Isn't it kind of ironic (and criminal) that a sheriff found this guy out and not the HS? Do they do background checks at all? For all of their spying, they sure missed the boat on this guy. He's the wolf in sheep's clothing, and this shows one of the many holes in HS.
Are they so busy poking into the lives of innocent Arab Americans, tourists from Hollland, and border issues? Set the threat advisory up a notch, HS, and let everyone know that this is internal.
Look no further than your own buidling, people. Do us all a favor and "remove" the predators from within first, and why not get a third party to do this work, like, say, the sheriff from Polk county, just because, well, we don't really trust your work.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
What? Keep the Christians off of TV?
This is what I mean (see blog about gay slippers). “TV networks reject ad from church: Say spot welcoming gays is controversial” It's okay to have gay people in television shows, especially if they are really straight actors and especially on cable, for the purpose of entertaining. But, when it comes to having rights for gays or places for them to be safe, then we can't show this on television.
The reason given for not airing the United Church of Christ ad was that these networks can't advocate social or religious issues. I don't buy it. What they don't want to do is let it be known that gays (and all the other groups portrayed) are Christians, too. Kind of hard to hate someone or condemn them to fiery hell when they go to church and have "You know Who" in their hearts, isn't it. Even more difficult to hate people who use "You Know Who's" ideas of loving everyone, not judging, and gathering in the name of God. Hmm. Yep, hard to hate that kind of person.
The networks don't air issues "of public controversy" or religious issues? Well, then get rid of the crappy McDonald's ads that advocate getting fat. That is totally controversial. Be gone! What about Barbie commercials. They advocate wacky body image and stereotypes. Take them off the air. What about all of those Christmas Hallmark make-people-cry about gathering around the tree commercials. Duh, religion. What about commercials for booze. Hello, do we need to advocate drinking? And, finally, if we can’t have this church commercial, get that L. Ron Hubbard stuff off the air, no more of the touchy-feely LDS ads, and definitely the ads that idolatrize Jessica Simpson need to go. No more worshipping on TV, sure, but that goes for all of the controversial issues.
Humph. And, people get all upset over that guy in Afghanistan. He might be executed for his change of faith, and people care, now that he is a Christian. Well, Jesus-lovers, there are fellow Christians trying to Do What Jesus Would Do, and you can’t even let them buy air time?
The reason given for not airing the United Church of Christ ad was that these networks can't advocate social or religious issues. I don't buy it. What they don't want to do is let it be known that gays (and all the other groups portrayed) are Christians, too. Kind of hard to hate someone or condemn them to fiery hell when they go to church and have "You know Who" in their hearts, isn't it. Even more difficult to hate people who use "You Know Who's" ideas of loving everyone, not judging, and gathering in the name of God. Hmm. Yep, hard to hate that kind of person.
The networks don't air issues "of public controversy" or religious issues? Well, then get rid of the crappy McDonald's ads that advocate getting fat. That is totally controversial. Be gone! What about Barbie commercials. They advocate wacky body image and stereotypes. Take them off the air. What about all of those Christmas Hallmark make-people-cry about gathering around the tree commercials. Duh, religion. What about commercials for booze. Hello, do we need to advocate drinking? And, finally, if we can’t have this church commercial, get that L. Ron Hubbard stuff off the air, no more of the touchy-feely LDS ads, and definitely the ads that idolatrize Jessica Simpson need to go. No more worshipping on TV, sure, but that goes for all of the controversial issues.
Humph. And, people get all upset over that guy in Afghanistan. He might be executed for his change of faith, and people care, now that he is a Christian. Well, Jesus-lovers, there are fellow Christians trying to Do What Jesus Would Do, and you can’t even let them buy air time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
