A complete transcript of her speech is available at Sharon Bridgforth's site by clicking here. I'm excerpting a portion here, but it will not do complete justice to the moving and brilliant words of Dr. Jones, so please take in the entire message from the video and/or the transcript -- and pass it on:
"I take this opportunity to speak with you very seriously. The times require that I use every moment of public presentation to speak the truth as I know it. That is my job as an artist, a scholar, a teacher, a committed human being seeking to make a world of peace and justice for everyone.
"This truth telling is dangerous business. It leaves one vulnerable — but our vulnerability is our strength. It leaves one exposed, but exposure allows the wind to whip through all those dank and musty spaces of terror and blow away isolation and fear. Truth telling leaves us free—and that is, after all the point.
"This truth telling is especially dangerous for a Black queer woman, for me. My very safety is at stake when I speak the truth, the truth of my life, and the truth of the world as I know it. My truths challenge the very foundation of the systems around me, systems that variously support and denigrate me, systems that applaud and slap me.
"So, as I walk, I look for mirrors, for allies who are also committed to everyone’s freedom, allies willing to risk their own safety in order to insure mine."
"I offer some reflections on what it means to be an ally to queer people, to women, and to people of color."
(1) "Allies know that it is not sufficient to be liberal. In fact, the liberal position is actually a walk backwards...The liberal position supports the status quo of the academy which means that racism, sexism, homophobia, the perils of nationhood, and a commitment to class structures cannot be undone in the academy—unless we move toward a radical rather than liberal position."
(2) "Be loud and crazy so Black folks won’t have to be! Speak up! Say it! Name it!" (Likewise men, straights, and Christians.)
(3) "Do not tell anyone in any oppressed group to be patient."
(4) "Recognize the new racism, the new sexism, the old homophobia. It is institutional and structural."
(5) "When called out about your racism, sexism or homophobia, don’t cower in embarrassment, don’t cry, and don’t silently think 'she’s crazy' and vow never to interact with her again. We are all plagued by racism, sexism, and homophobia. Be grateful that someone took the time to expose yours—remember, exposure allows the wind to whip away isolation and fear."
(6) "Allies actively support alternative possibilities."
It's a smart, unheated rendering of why she is (and should be treated as) a joke that for me is remarkable because Lupica does not once resort to sexism to take a swipe at her. A feat far too many progessive men can't seem to pull off.
It's all the stronger for avoiding references to gender-based issues (how many kids she has or how they've turned out, how she dresses, or the writer's unsoliticed sexual fantasies) which would never be trotted out to illistrate the unsuitability of a male candidate for leadership. Lupica does remind us that her base tends to support her for sexist reasons but doesn't play the game of "so therefore I can take a crack at objectifying her as a woman myself".
I see no reason why we can't all keep it this clean and substantive. I mean, they give us plenty to work with.
There's more...
I want to take this extremely useful reminder one or two steps further. We need to ask ourselves (1) When dealing with manifest mental illness, what is an effective and humane form of behavior that doesn't make things worse, for us or for them? and (2) Let's be explicit about what kind of crazy we're facing here.
Once I was having dinner with an old friend who had retired to a rural area for a while after an extended, messy break-up. She was back in town and we were catching up. She looked much brighter and happier than she had when she'd left town, and I was relieved to see it. Before we got to dessert, however, she confided that she'd finally gotten over her heartbreak after having visitations from aliens -- she could name the planet and galaxy -- who let her know she'd been born there, not on Earth, and she would always have problems relating intimately to Earthlings. I broke into giggles, but she was dead serious. She had come up with a way to cope, a narrative which worked for her, and I had about twenty seconds to figure out what to do.
That sort of situation, once the shock passes (take several sips of tea), is not so hard to handle. Ask questions, stay kind, remind yourself what they -- any of us -- really want/deserve is love and interest. Easy to remember when it's your friend. She didn't have any children she was responsible for, she was clean and eating well and driving okay, and she wasn't going around telling everybody she was from Planet X, only the folks she trusted, so she wasn't about to get locked up. Functionally delusional.
I'm thinking, at this point in America, about one out of every three people is functionally delusional. I think we've always had more than our share because of the nature of our immigration here -- folks who can healthily adjust to and remain in their home communities don't leave those communities. And being persecuted doesn't mean you haven't also become pretty messed up along the way.
On top of that revisitation of the great American myth, I also believe that white supremacy, woman-hating, class exploitation, and child abuse are all concrete forms of mental illness. They are interlinked, they have for millenia been fostered and supported by European governments and the Christian Church, and they are the bedrock upon which our country was founded. When Che said he envied us because we live in the belly of the beast, the point is not whether he was being sarcastic: The point is that living in the belly is a very poor strategic position from which to fight the beast unless you first acknowledge all your sustenance is coming from the beast.
To put it another way, if you say you are not a racist, you most definitely are. Racism is a core value in our culture and nobody escapes the conditioning. And the basic tenet of racism is not that "there are differences between the races" or whatever Websterian bullshit semantic game you want to trot out: The basic tenet of racism is white supremacy. If you are not white, you are second-class (on a good day). You are the Other. You are a risk to the American Way of Life.
Yes, some white Europeans got labeled not-quite-white or The Other for a while, but that merely proves the point. You can lose your position of safety in a system built on racism by associating with/defending/or becoming not-white. It keeps white people in line, this risk; most especially working-class white folks who are already on thin ice.
So, because of a brilliant campaign in which one of the subliminal messages was "I'm not entirely black, I'm not black like Jesse Jackson or Jeremiah Wright, I've picked up enough class polish to not embarrass you like Dubya, and I will NOT make America deal with its bedrock racism", we've elected an African-American to the Presidency. I'm not saying those are the only reasons Obama was elected, but for too many white people who cast the deciding votes, I believe the hope that we could simply side-step racism and Just Be Together made Obama someone they voted for.
Plus: The mess about to handed to the next President was godawful. Who do we get to clean up our messes for us in this country? The really terrible messes, the ones that make you need to gag? Women and/or People of Cullah. Goes without saying.
But for that 30% who are functionally delusional, part of their functionality vanished when the Presidency didn't go to a white guy. They simply cannot cope with what has actually occurred. They are, to use jargon, decompensating. I happen to believe the impact would have been just a great if Hillary had been elected, and if there's one bright lining in all these, it's that I'm not having to listen to the non-stop woman-hating jag that would be going on if she'd been elected. Not Sarah Palin, because she is a Real Woman, according to the delusion, which means she's under the thumb of a man. But in comparison to all the horrifying racism that has bubbled up to the surface (didn't have far to go, let's be honest), if it were Hillary as target, it wouldn't just be the Right. It would be all our nice liberal boys who get twitchy at the mention of her name.
You'll see their flecks of spittle start appearing in the comments as soon as I post this. Until I delete those comments for being unhingedly off the point, that is.
Thus, the racism that was always there, always running the show, has been unmasked for a lot of white people, and we can't live in the same comfortable pretense that we had before. Even those of us who have other labels which make us pitchforks-and-torches targets -- dykes, fags, Jews, crips, poor and not upwardly mobile -- have had a jolt, seeing how much crazy is pouring from the seams. To quote Madge, "We're soaking in it."
And the only way to clean it up thoroughly is to scrub down to bare wood. Otherwise, we'll keep having what we've got.
It won't be Obama and his inner circle who does this work. It's going to be so-called progressives (which is not a cohesive, clearly defined community, either) who will help steward our culture from about to self-destructive Crazy to admitting-we-have-a-problem-and-maybe-we-can-work-on-it Crazy. What I've promised myself in this process is to not lie just because what I'm criticizing Obama and his crew for may remind me/us of the hate pouring from racism. I have to remember, I voted for him, I want him to succeed, I want him to find a way to live up to ideals that he may have only mouthed for political expedience, but people can change.
And here's a few thoughts I've had over the last couple of weeks.
(1) The Birther insanity is code for "There is no such thing as a legitimate black birth." Admitting that black children can be born with as much legitimacy as white children strokes a sledgehammer blow at white supremacy. ESPECIALLY if it's the result of miscegenation, which was still illegal in this country for a chunk of my lifetime.
(2) The school speech "controversy" is code for "We don't let our children see or hear black people who speak well and with pride." This is no joke: Families built around authoritarian principles don't let African-American images in television come into their homes, unless they are being arrested by cops, clearly poor and/or "know their place", or the parents are there to make sure the kids hear non-stop racism instead of noticing the black people look/sound like people. White people who have been raised with this kind of isolation and deliberate poisoning are all around us. Continuing that practice is the real point of not letting their kids hear Obama speak in a non-racist, public setting. Contagion, you know -- if they find out they can be lesbians, their daughters will never choose men, and if they find out black people can be smart and powerful, they'll insist on living in a world where that's the case.
(3) Having lots of people openly carry guns makes public settings extremely unsafe for everybody present. Statistics have proven it over and over again: Add a gun to a crowd, and the odds of somebody innocent dying go way up. The point of having armed presence at public forums is to scare away the non-crazies, to get us used to further militarization of our discourse and community environments, and to have weapons handy in case somebody goes off the deep end and DOESN'T HAVE ONE OF THEIR OWN TO USE. "Hey, I was just carrying for self-defense, how was I to know that lunatic would snatch it from my holster and fire at the President?"
(4) Recruitment and glomming together of the deranged can be subtle. During the 1980s, the activist group I worked with finally figured out how come the Klan and Nazis kept having rallies in places where they were absolutely going to be shouted down by the opposition. They didn't hope to persuade any of us to change our minds, and they knew they were pissing off the neighborhoods they intruded upon. But because of that antagonism, they had to be surrounded by cops two or three rows deep, cops who were facing screaming commies, Jews, lesbians, and POC. Those cops were the Klan's recruitment target. These days it's cops plus the military.
(5) If somebody says, in any translation, that they cannot handle what is actually occurring -- and we're hearing that now, 24/7 -- we need to point out over and over again that THEY are the ones with a problem. Crazy people seldom admit they are crazy.
(6) You don't argue with crazy people. We go on with our work, and if they interfere, we say "Nope, I don't have time to help you right now with your emotional imbalance" and MEAN IT.
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) are fighting back against the Right Wing racist, sexist smear campaign which is designed to permanently tarnish the reputation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. In addition to statements in every venue they can reach, they've set up an online petition to demand leaders of the Republican Party stop these hate-based attacks. I'm going to copy in below the e-mail I received from them. The links embedded in it will take you to their website which has the same information as the e-mail plus a message form for you to complete.
I'm thrilled to live in a city that is approximately 30% Latino/a and a GREAT place to be as a result. This crap has to stop.
The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court was an historic and proud moment for Latinos and the country as a whole. But her ethnicity has proven too much of a temptation for the voices of hate and extremism, who instead of looking at her judicial record have launched a vocal rampage that has reached new heights of absurdity.
Rush Limbaugh, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and others are claiming that Sotomayor is a "reverse racist" because she believes that more judges with diverse backgrounds and experiences would be a good thing for the judicial system. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (the "think tank" of Tanton's web of anti-immigrant extremist groups) and his pals at the National Review online are just beside themselves that Judge Sotomayor had the temerity to pronounce her own name correctly. They basically said that if she was a real American, she would butcher it. In an article that appeared in The Hill newspaper, Republican insiders are quoted as being "concerned" that Sotomayor's avowed love of arroz con gandules and other Puerto Rican delicacies will cloud her judicial decision-making.
This one, however, takes the cake:
Former Congressman, failed presidential candidate, and anti-immigrant extremist Tom Tancredo, unable to provide a shred of evidence for his assertion that Judge Sotomayor is a "racist," went off the deep end on CNN, saying Sotomayor belongs to "the Latino KKK without the hoods and nooses."
That's what Tancredo called NCLR-a 40-year-old, national Latino civil rights organization that works with community organizations all over the country to help Latino families achieve the American Dream. NCLR has been recognized by members of Congress and the media, has hosted presidents of both political parties, and works hand in hand with other national civil rights organizations in a bipartisan way to improve the lives of all Americans.
Raising questions and concerns about Judge Sotomayor's 17-year record on the bench is legitimate. Resorting tooutdated stereotypes, defamation of character, and outright falsehoods is not.
Please join us and send a message to Chairman Michael Steele of the RNC, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asking them to denounce these statements and restore the nomination process for Judge Sotomayor to a more appropriate and civil discourse.
(Venus of Hohle Fels; photo by H. Jensen, University of Tübingen)
"I'd Rather Be A Hammer Than A Nail": Fallacy in the Construct
The finds at Hohle Fels Cave in Germany keep arriving. The latest, announced this week, is the small figure of a woman deliberately shaped without her head. Exquisitely carved from mammoth ivory, the figure has exaggerated breasts, buttocks, and genitals typical of so-called prehistoric "Venus" statues. She is dated as being approximately 35,000 years old, and many are now saying this is the oldest verified figurative art ever found. She's at least 10,000 years older than the comparable "Venus of Willendorf" and perhaps 20,000 years older than the cave paintings at Lascaux. It is presumed that she was created by Homo sapiens sapiens, although there were Neanderthals still alive and in the area at that time.
(Venus of Willendorf figure, in limestone, carved 20,000 to 25,000 years ago)
The Venus of Willendorf and other similar figures may have heads but do not show clear faces. This newly discovered statue has a ring where the head would be, indicating it was possibly worn as a pendant. One article stated she should be interpreted as a fertility symbol. From my reading of anthropology, it seems fairly clear this carving is an object of reverence, of worship, with fertility being only one aspect of what was revered about her. She is quintessentially woman: Fleshy, powerful, and gorgeous.
An art history professor I had in college told us that most of the cave paintings in Europe are believed to have been created by women. He said even if you assume humans were much smaller than they are now, the "signatures" of handprints found in association with the scenes of animals are likely female. Recent interpretation of the Lascaux scenes, for example, indicate the point of the paintings was not to depict "a successful hunt". The spirituality goes much deeper than that, probably something like a metaphysical examination of the natural world and our place in it.
Likewise, hunting was not the main source of nutrition or necessarily even of protein for prehistoric peoples. Gathering, as opposed to hunting, was far more crucial to a band's survival, with nuts and roots offering richer, more reliable, and far less dangerous means of obtaining essential amino acids. Hunting has been emphasized and glorified because the anthropologists studying and interpreting artifacts have tended to be male, and hunting is seen as a male activity (an inaccurate Western view, but that's the stereotype).
My second year of college, I took an introduction to anthro course from a prof named Roy Miller because someone had said he really knew his stuff. He was not impressive, at first glance, with an unfortunate mustache, bad posture, and a squeaky voice. When we arrived the first day of class, he had covered the chalkboards on two sides of the room with details of a field study of baboons. He began going through these observations in a pedantic manner, and I found myself quickly bored. I started doodling in my notebook. My attention returned when he faced us and said the obvious conclusion to be reached about this primate's social structure, as proposed by the eminent scholar Robin Fox (not a cartoon name, but a real scholar whose work I had already found offensive), was that females were expendable and subservient to the power structure of the group. Dr. Miller went on to say should we not then draw a conclusion about the role women should be playing in human society, that biologically we are not meant to assume real leadership?
I remember clearly the reactions of two other students in the class. One was a jock, a blond fratboy who sat up straight and snickered loudly. He clearly thought he was bound to get an easy A in this course. The other student was a woman in her 30s (I thought of her as "old" then, g*d help me), with unfashionable clothes and hair, who immediately argued that extrapolating human trends from baboons was bad science.
Dr. Miller challenged her to back up her statement with examples. She looked around at the rest of us, despaired of our slack-jawed state, and took him on. It was 1974, and feminism did not yet have any kind of foothold on that campus -- nor would Polly (that was her name) likely have called herself a feminist. But she smelled a rat and she wasn't going to take crap off any man. Later, Polly and I became friends. She was divorced, after having put her husband through college, and now was raising two small children alone while trying to get her own degree. She was a toughie.
I was still terribly shy at that point, but within a few minutes, I raised my hand and began arguing as well. A few other women joined me and Polly. No men on our side, and the jock backing up Dr. Miller didn't have anything intelligent to say, just jeers. I made a silent decision to go drop this class soon as I could, find another professor who wasn't such a swine. In the meantime, slowly over the next hour, we women were able to punch holes in the conclusions offered by Dr. Miller by going back to the data on the board and coming up with another possible interpretation of each step. Dr. Miller began grinning. Finally he held up his hands, cutting off Polly about to stand up and yell at him, and said "You're absolutely right. The deductions drawn by Robin Fox were erroneous in every regard, based on his male-centered view of how he imagined things must be. His sexism completely distorted his reality. The fact is, the females in this band are in charge of every important decision, they are the life's blood of the troop. Kudos to you for not buying his bias."
The jock looked like he was going to pass out. (He did, in fact, drop the class before we met again.) Polly pounded on her desk in jubilation, and when the bell rang soon thereafter, and she and I stayed behind to talk to Dr. Miller. By the end of that semester, I had switched my major from journalism to anthropology.
Thus, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The fact is, there's a preponderance of evidence to suggest that the first humans to develop agriculture, to build dwellings, to use fire, to domesticate animals, were probably women -- at the very least, women and men working together. Interestingly, a high percentage of the earliest hominid remains are also female. And if human biology of that earlier time can be compared to ours of today (not at all guaranteed, but if...), then more many of the elders in a band would have been women. Elders carried the accumulated knowledge, wisdom, and culture of a nomadic tribe.
Something to think about. Thanks, Dr. Miller, for encouraging me to do just that.
(U.S. athletes Tommie Smith, center, and John Carlos, extend gloved hands skyward and stare downward in racial protest during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner after Smith received the gold and Carlos the bronze for the 200 meter run at the Olympics in Mexico City on Oct. 16, 1968. Australian silver medalist Peter Norman is at left.)
No pretense.
That's what I'm asking for this inauguration, and of you who have a chance to witness it in person tomorrow.
If you respect Barack Obama's message, the platform he ran on, the possibilities that are waiting for him and us, you will demonstrate that by respecting him AND by having the guts to disagree with his mistakes. (He does and will make mistakes.) Inviting Rick Warren to usher in this new era with prayer is an offensive mistake.
If, on the other hand, you find his views repugnant, you should not pretend to allow him to speak for you (and us as a nation) in his address to g*d. Do not pretend to a respect you do not feel. You'll regret your silence, you know you will.
Here's where you make your chops as a feet-on-the-street activist, instead of a keyboard theorist. Stand up and turn you back on the man when he starts to speak. If you believe in prayer, do your own, out loud and with honest feeling. If you don't believe in prayer, sing "America the Beautiful", which was written by a LESBIAN. (Except if it was me, I'd replace every other "brotherhood" with "sisterhood".)
I booed Tommy Thompson at the Kennedy Center when he came to speak to an international gathering of disabled artists. It made some heads explode, but he heard it, others heard it, and who knows how far those ripples have traveled.
I'm all for forgiveness. I live by forgiveness. But since being given this honor, this reward for past hateful behavior, Rick Warren has not sought our forgiveness nor has he sought reconciliation. He's scrubbed some of past (and no doubt future) hate-based views from his website. He's raised money for his anti-liberation work by parading his selection around as proof that the conservative message of convert or die is working. He has Not Changed. And when people resist growth, you can have patience but you don't give them respect for persistent shitty choices.
No pretense. Not on this day.
{And, just to prove the point that Obama could have chosen from a vast number of religious leaders who DO live/preach genuine liberation messages, check out Reverend Al Sharpton's keynote speech at the Human Rights Ecumenical Service held at Atlanta's Tabernacle Baptist Church to welcome the Atlanta-based Alliance of Affirming Faith-Based Organizations.}
Not enough to give them their own article. At least not on a holiday weekend when I'm all about resting and reading. And folks are mostly taking it easy. But enough to post them up together.
Enjoy.
Bothell High School, Seattle Sued over Nude Cheerleader Photos
This is total sexist bullshit. Welcome to the Seattle School District.
Therefore, naturally, the girls were suspended from cheerleading. One for 30 days, one for a year. The PI story didn't say, but I'd assume the topless photo only got 30 days. Nudity is worth an entire year, I'm guessing.
The football players? A stern talking to, then back to the gridiron.
The girls are suing the hell out of the Seattle School District. Can you say Equal Protection Violation?
King argues the district's student handbook didn't specifically prohibit the girls' behavior, and didn't outline potential consequences for a case like this.
"My clients fully realize what they did was stupid," King said, adding that the girls never intended for the photos to be distributed and have been mortified by the entire incident.
He wants the disciplinary action expunged from the girls' school records, the remaining teen reinstated to the cheerleading squad and some form of apology from district officials for neglecting to discipline other students in the case.
Northshore officials, however, believe the girls clearly violated the district's athletic code, which students must agree to in order to participate in school activities. The girls understood that as athletes, they would be held to higher standards of behavior, Stoltzfus said.
"When you sign up to be a cheerleader -- or for any student activity -- you agree to certain codes of behavior," she said. "We consider them student leaders, and we want them to be role models."
Teen Sex = Sex Offender = Eviction = Georgia Remains a Totally STUPID State
The girl was 17. The boy was three weeks shy of 16.
In its infinite wisdom the great State of Georgia -- motto: even stupider than Mississippi -- convicted her of sodomy which ended her up on the registered sex offender's list for life.
People on said list can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, daycare, school bus stop, and so on. Even if they own a home or are renting, if a school bus changes its route, if a new school or a church gets put in, they are hosed. For life.
Because of a teenage blowjob when they were less than two years apart.
If you gave/received head to/from someone while you/they were under 16 years old (yes, that means you or they were 15 or younger), raise your hand. Feel free to tell us the entire story including ages, and how totally bogus Georgia's bullshit law is. Do remember however there are Statute of Limitations regarding Age of Consent laws. We're not lawyers; don't ask us.
The cash belonged to a -- seriously -- Mr. Smith. It was his life savings. He was moving, so instead of hiding it at his home, he had it on him. Mr. Smith satisfied the police it was his and they returned his money to him.
“Besides being really, really shocked, I had an overwhelming sense of pride for Moses for doing the right thing,” said Schafer, the store’s guest services manager.
“You always hope that people would do the right thing,” she said. “He didn’t even think twice.”
Federal Way police are also praising Baraniuc.
“That was great,” said Cmdr. Stan McCall. “I think that’s very honest and shows a great deal of integrity.”
Baraniuc works 15 hours a week after school to pay for gas and other expenses. He earns minimum wage.
Baraniuc said he and his family came to the United States five years ago with $300.
He teaches 10-year-olds in Sunday school at First Ukrainian Baptist Church in the Federal Way area. That’s another reason he knew he had to return the money.
“I can’t be teaching little kids not to do it if I’m doing it,” he said.
Baraniuc's promised a reward, but says he's fine: “Right now I have everything I need.”
Lots of people might mock this. I think it's just great.
There's more...
Stop HHS Promoting Religious Minority Beliefs Ahead of Medical Care and Science
Back in July I wrote about Bush's attempt to redefine contraception as "abortion" and allow any health care worker in a business receiving federal funding to refuse medical services to women if they find such care "objectionable". Despite rigorous effort by Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray, and public action facilitated by activists such as those on this blog, the Department of Health and Human Services under Michael Leavitt has rolled on like a tank to enact this new rule. You can read more about it at Planned Parenthood's action site, where you can speak out yourself. I'm also copying in below the press release sent out about this travesty.
It reminds me of the lowest form of home invasion, where after everything valuable is stolen and a house is trashed, on their way out the door the criminals take a dump in the corner. That's what the Bush regime is doing these final days.
Hurry, Tom Daschle. Hurry.
SENATORS CLINTON AND MURRAY INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO STOP NEW HHS RULE THAT WOULD UNDERMINE WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE
WASHINGTON, DC — In light of reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is preparing to enact a rule that would undermine critical health care services for women and families, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) today introduced legislation that would prevent the HHS rule from going into effect. The proposed HHS rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. The proposed bill would keep HHS from moving forward with this rule.
"In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most. Senator Murray and I are standing up once again to the administration against this rule and will continue to fight for women's reproductive rights. President Bush is making a last-minute attempt to undermine women's health care, but our legislation will stop this rule and ensure that women can continue to get needed health care," said Senator Clinton.
"It's now clear that the Bush Administration is so desperate to move their political agenda forward that they are even willing to ignore the advice of their own appointed lawyers. But patient protection and access to care should never take a back seat to politics," Senator Murray said. "Senator Clinton and I are introducing this legislation to ensure that the health of patients always come first. For eight years this administration has worked to undermine women's health but they won't get away with it on their way out the door."
"This midnight regulation is another outrageous attempt by the Bush administration to deny women access to vital health care information and services," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards. "Planned Parenthood applauds members of Congress for taking on the task of undoing the abysmal policy mandates and we stand ready to work with them to ensure women have access to the full range of reproductive health care options."
Senators Clinton and Murray have led the effort to block HHS from implementing this new rule. Following a meeting with HHS Secretary Michael O. Leavitt on September 23, Senators Clinton and Murray led a group of 28 Senators urging Secretary Leavitt to halt the proposed HHS rule. Senators Clinton and Murray on called for the meeting with Secretary Leavitt on August 8 after Secretary Leavitt failed to reply to several letters from the Senators and instead defended the proposed HHS policies on his personal blog.
The senators have worked in the past to stop efforts by the Bush Administration to put in place ideological barriers to women's health. They successfully led the fight to secure an administration decision on the over-the-counter sale of Plan B emergency contraception after more than three years of Administration delay.
I received an e-mail today from Democracy For America inviting me to participate in a "for fun" game of choosing who I would appoint for cabinet positions in the new Obama Presidency. I went to their website and made my selections for Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, Attorney General and Environmental Protection Agency.
However, I was struck by the extreme limitations of the choices presented. I'm not sure if this list was compiled by DFA alone or if it's based on what the Obama transition team has released as those under consideration, but either way, it's not good news: It's 67% white men. As a woman, as a resident of a state with a non-white majority, I found this incredibly depressing.
Of the 34 unique names listed (some of the women were repeated in more than category, as it common with tokens), 28 were male and 6 (17%) were female. Of the 34, 28 or 82% were white (except for one candidate whose race/ethnicity I don't know). Of the people of color, 4 (11.5%) were African-American males, 1 (3%) was an Hispanic male, and one female was possibly a woman of color -- no apparent Asians or Native Americans.
Reality -- which may have a well-known liberal bias but this is not a liberal Presidency, clearly -- if it were represented in these choices would show 51% women. This is an appalling gap. Likewise, our real population diversity in America is 66% non-Hispanic white, 15% Hispanic, 13% African-American, 6% "some other race" alone, 4% Asian, 2% multiracial, and 0.09% Native American/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
I was not able to document class background of these candidates, but given the biographies I did read, they are overwhelmingly educated at expensive, elite schools and/or come from economic privilege.
I don't know about you, but I voted for Change. Not tokenism as usual (now that we made one historic change), not paucity of imagination, and certainly not the tired old argument of "we just couldn't find any qualified candidates who weren't white men".
For all of you who argued "I support women in leadership, just not That Woman" or who argued "I'm not racist, I believe in civil rights", well, now is when you get put your ass on the line. Agitate for diversity and chances given to those who are absolutely out there but not being listed. We never needed fresh thinking more.
------------------------------------- Here's the list of names provided, along with gender and racial status:
You're not the boss of me now, you're not the boss of me now, you're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big.
Life is unfair.
It appears that the middle school approach to governing (and choosing our elected officials) is an experiment coming to an end. For two weeks now, people have been engaging in an activity which expresses their preference as to who they want to make decisions for them. Today we'll do it in massive numbers. On a fundamental level, this is a yes-no decision. The right to say yes or no is one of the earliest behaviors we learn and one of the earliest we have taken away from us.
We assume parents limit their children's autonomy for reasons of safety and well-being. Much of the time, that's an accurate assumption. But we, as parents, are also regularly handing on our scar tissue from how our own yes-no power was unjustly fucked with.
When my daughter was around four years old, she discovered she could collect spit in her mouth and make interesting sounds with it. She quickly became enamored of this activity. Just as quickly, I realized I could not tolerate it. If we were trapped together, say in a car, I simply told her to stop. If we were at home, I forced her to go to her room or outside "to do that". I don't remember offering an explanation beyond "Because I don't want to hear it" or, even more likely, "Because I said so." (Translation: I have power over you, and I'm exercising it without any recourse on your part.)
If I had been interrupted by someone I trusted, I might have been able to come up with a reason for my visceral reaction and aversion. If I really, really trusted them at that point in time, it's remotely conceivable I could even have told them the reason: My teenaged older brother used to torture me and my little brother, 8 and 11 years younger than him respectively, in every manner he could imagine. One of his favorite tactics was to hold us down -- he was a high school quarterback -- and let spit dangle from his mouth over our faces, closer and closer to our own mouths, until either he lost control and it fell on us and/or we vomited. Begging for mercy made no difference. The ultimate goal was to make us retch at the merest hint of his saliva.
Now, after years of therapy focusing on my childhood abuse, that particular button doesn't make me instantly crazy -- I can listen to a child engaging in this rite-of-passage self-exploration for a few minutes before, politely, asking them to find something else they can do with their mouths. I've wiped my share of drool and snot, and although I'm still a sympathy hurler (I can't watch one segment of The Meaning of Life, for instance), I don't have a glass stomach. But I'm still carrying damage from that early denial of my right to say no.
When I look at our culture, I see us as all carrying damage with regard to yes-no judgment. One feminist precept states that you cannot claim to have the freedom or judgment to say "yes" if you cannot also so "no" without major consequence. Notions of consent are predicated on this. And under conservative rule, consent has been under constant attack and abridgement. We are, in many ways, more confused about consent than we were three decades ago.
I write this as an initial effort in the task before us to clear our cultural confusion and regain yes-no clarity. The main body of this task will begin after the election, after we have not only won the Presidency but swept government. We the People are profoundly angry as a result of our growing comprehension of how our consent has been manipulated, stolen, and taken for granted. We may be confused, but we still have a "no" in our grasp and I believe we are going to use it in landslide numbers.
In a recent conversation with Jesse, he said he thought the erosion in our yes-no judgment arrived in full force with advertising. Advertising comes at us without our consent, and we are not able to engage in a two-way conversation with it. Each decade growing up under its influence creates a more passive response to the world, a passivity which finds solace in authoritarianism and xenophobia. (Not to mention porn, fast food, uniforms, and shopping, all of which encourage avoidance of actual thinking about your actions and taking power.)
I see a prior-to-advertising cultural predisposition to denial of autonomy, however, one whose coattails advertising rode in on. Some days I can see an enormous blueprint for it -- totaling, of course, to the number 42. Other days, it's mostly the reality of all the denials of no that I bump up against as a woman.
As a woman, I was raised to not say no. I was raised to avoid, defer, deflect, flirt, make a joke of it, pretend, charm, parse, diminish, or barricade any "no" I might have in response to a male approach. On the average day, the average woman dances around "no" dozens of times, because to do otherwise is to be accused of not being a real woman. It is the grammar of our female syntax, how to imply "yes" without landing in a snare. (The root word of glamour is grammar, a spellbook.)
I come from a generation which dared allow ourselves to see the skein around us which tells us plain boiled "no" is not an acceptable answer. It's a stark vision. To a lesser extent, I've also learned to notice how people of color are forced to say "yes" to anyone white. Children of color are carefully taught how to not deny a yes to white people. Don't be confused by its flipped version, the angry/defiant immediate "no" which so upsets white supremacists: The flip side of a coin is still a shape accepting the stamp of a metal hammer.
This election has brought out in the open, in a new way, our pathology around who gets to say "no", and who does not. I believe the results of today's voting will be, at its most basic, a reach for the right to say "no" by those who have not done so, not reliably and as clearly, in the past. It is more than a "fuck you", it is an energizing, often exuberant "no". No as the cornerstone of a new discourse without lying. No as honor.
Or, as it was perfectly said by Adrienne Rich in her 1977 essay "Women and Honor: Some Notes on Lying":
"Truthfulness anywhere means a heightened complexity. But it is a movement into evolution. Women are only beginning to uncover our own truths; many of us would be grateful for some rest in that struggle, would be glad iust to lie down with the sherds we have painfully unearthed, and be satisfied with those. The politics worth having, the relationships worth having, demand that we delve still deeper.
"The possibilities that exist between two people, or among a group of people, are a kind of alchemy. They are the most interesting thing in life. The liar is someone who keeps losing sight of these possibilities.
"When relationships are determined by manipulation, by the need for control, they may possess a dreary, bickering kind of drama, but they cease to be interesting. They are repetitious; the shock of human possibilities has ceased to reverberate through them. When someone tells me a piece of the truth which has been withheld from me, and which I needed in order to see my life more clearly, it may bring acute pain, but it can also flood me with a cold, sharp wash of relief. Often such truths come by accident, or from strangers.
"It isn't that to have an honorable relationship with you, I have to understand everything, or tell you everything at once, or that I can know, beforehand, everything I need to tell you.
"It means that most of the time I am eager, longing for the possibility of telling you. That these possibilities may seem frightening, but not destructive, to me. That I feel strong enough to hear your tentative and groping words. That we both know we are trying, all the time, to extend the possibilities of truth between us.
Our friend and fellow blogger, Michael Shaw over at Bagnews Notes has a great post up this week that I thought might be of interest to folks here since we have had a lot of in depth sometimes heated discussions about gender during this election season.
Bagnews is a blog about analyzing images in the corporate media.
The one in the last week that struck me was this;
Stephan Savoia/AP. Sept. 10, 2008. Fairfax, Va.
What do you think of this image? What do you think the AP is trying to say by running this one? Michael had some interesting comments,
The camera fascinates me. I wonder about the "demographics" of the audience members in this Fairfax, Virginia crowd and wonder how representative they are. (Class has definitely been on my mind as I've thought about this image, especially as the newswire has filled up lately with more pictures of enthusiastic women at Palin/McCain rallies. In that regard, what I find actually atypical about this image -- which should be good for an email, or two -- is how much younger and somehow "less-Republican" looking these women appear.) Of course, the shot is so sexually charged. And yet, I look at those shoes and I keep thinking: the Ruby Slippers. But then, I hate the analogy because I see Palin as more of a wannabe.
I see less Ruby-Slippers/ Dorothy and more Flying Monkeys carrying away all the sensible sane governance of America and throwing it in a dungeon somewhere. (in Alaska perhaps?)
The choice of imagery shown with Palin stories also reminds me that a lot of the narrative about gender and the direction that the narrative has taken has been trumped up and manipulated by the media.
One story from early on in the Gov. of Alaska saga really struck me. When people were questioning her decision to run as VP when Palin has a pregnant teen and a new baby with downs syndrome; the media screeched that no one would ask these questions of a man.
That is utter bullshit.
As you know I was a big Howard Dean supporter in 03-04. Well early on, Howard's son was in a drinking and theft situation, and the media and GOP right wing blog types were yelling from the rooftops about how if he could not manage his family and help keep his kids out of trouble why in the world was he thinking of running for president?
Now that is not to say that sexism has not been a huge issue in politics. But I do remind myself, and am reminded by stories that run the picture above, that much of the narrative is manipulated by corporate media to sell advertising and get viewers eyes on their message. It would take a ton, not grains of salt to have a proper filter to view this stuff.
There's more...
Here's your daily subjective report on the Olympics and a chance to converse about it in comments. For the suggested guidelines, please read the opening paragraphs of my my original post.
SPOILER NOTE: Some results will be reported below for the competition of yesterday, so be forewarned.
FEEDBACK: It's so predictable. I self-identify as disabled and at least one person thinks that means it's okay to call me retarded. This is classic able-bodied oppression. I do not have a mental or cognitive disability (although I did for part of one year, after anoxia during a surgery). If I did, I'd say so without shame. It's not funny and it's not "less than", it's simply a difference. Retard, on the other hand, is a hate term and is not welcome here. I'm leaving the comment up to make my point, but future hate speech directed against physical difference will disappear, poof.
I think commenting on the rigid feminization of certain sports is entirely appropriate, just as commenting on race and class as it limits those who can be at the Olympics is what a political blog should be doing. I used humor to change the pace, but I think it must have gone over at least one person's head: Pointing out sexism and classism is NOT part of the problem, despite the American myth that silence is the only (middle-class) way to be "nice". White, male, and upper class are default normal in this country. If you point out something contrary to the default, if you ask for attention to be directed toward the areas where people are still fucking dying daily because they are targeted in these areas, it is not identity politics or causing trouble, it is clarity and conscience which offers hope to every person who isn't comfortably included in (or allied with) the "default" categories.
Using "political correctness" as an attempted insult immediately marks you as having been stunted by the thinking of the Right, as begun by Reagan. Liberal, politically correct, compassion, and global are not terms of disparagement to me and other radicals. Political correctness is, at its baseline, a sincere attempt to avoid language, thinking and behavior which contributes to the oppression of others. If it seems hilarious or too much work to you, well, as Dr. Phil says, you might wanna take a look at that.
I also have a little trouble with the term "heatherish", which has the feel of pretending that the internalized oppression aimed by members of a target group at one another is what keeps those of in the target group oppressed and "in line". My self-reminder in any analysis is: Check the power flow, dummy. Me noticing how terrified these young women are of looking "not right" is NOT the oppression (which is a blend of class and gender).
One commenter made a great point, about objective scoring vs. subjective. Another commenter (at my own blog) made a related point when she voiced appreciation for the commentators who are taking the time to explain the sport to us as the action goes along. Understanding why deductions occur helps make it a much more enjoyable, shared experience -- and, incidentally, reveals where subjectivity has too much leeway. I'm still outraged that Torvill & Dean didn't win their ice-dancing competition years ago, and whether it was judge corruption or simple disagreement about technique, the presence of subjective scoring there allowed a decision that almost no one found fair.
Thanks to the white-water fans who explained more about why Benjamin Boukpeti's win was so exciting, and about how the current course is equalizing gender in this particular sport. And, again, thanks to earlier commenters who gave me a smidgen of education about fencing: When I watched the women's team saber finals today, I understood a great deal more and got very caught up in the action.
Back to the question of attire: Much was made of Michael Phelps having to swim last night with goggles full of water, which effectively blinded him for 100 meters. To his credit, he still turned in a world record time. Since he is poised to break Mark Spitz's record, the Today show featured an interview with Mark Spitz, who was extremely gracious and supportive. I remembered him (all the swimmers then) racing without goggles, so I went to Youtube and found a video of the 1972 games, below. It's blurry but does show all the men wore no goggles or hats, had often shaggy hair (including Spitz's mustache, which I don't think we'd ever see today), and not all of them had the skimpy Speedo that Spitz wore. There was a lot of talk about how revealing his suit was, as I remember, but he said it played a role in his superior swim times and, of course, he was right about that.
In December 1974, my partner and I with our four-year-old daughter were traveling through South Texas and we stopped at the Magic Time Machine restaurant in San Antonio (which is still there). This is a TGI Friday's kinda place whose gimmick is that all the staff dresses up like characters from history or current pop culture. We were shown to a table by a guy dressed as Benjamin Franklin and invited to go to the "salad car" right away. Folks dressed in wildly different costumes flowed back and forth, and our daughter was a little frightened by it all -- she didn't recognize most of who the actors were supposed to be portraying.
Back at our table, however, as our waiter approached she cried out with delight "Look! It's Mark Spitz!" Wearing a skimpy Speedo, with that brushy mustache and mop of hair, and seven gold medals bouncing back and forth on his chest, indeed, Mark Spitz's double took our order. My daughter shyly asked if she could touch one of his medals, and he consented graciously. I noticed, however, his skin was slightly blue and there were goosebumps on his arms. He must have been freezing, poor guy.
My daughter talked about meeting Mark Spitz for years, a thrill of her young life. We didn't let on until she was old enough to figure it out for herself.
This Olympics we're seeing an astonishing number of swimming world records broken, not just by Michael Phelps but across the board, even in qualifying heats. One possible cause is the widespread use of Speedo's Fastskin LZR Racer suit, which I think first appeared at the Athens Olympics but appears perfected at this point. Also, the newer Olympic pools manipulate water away from the swimmer, as if they are "swimming downhill". And I've heard that new chemicals to more quickly remove lactic acid from overused muscles gives a strong advantage to current athletes who must perform repetitively in a single day or over a few days.
I mention all this with no intention to draw away credit from the astonishing performances we are seeing. It's a swimming Olympics to remember, for sure. And -- as Mark Spitz's record is bested, let's remember the guy who did what he did without these advantages, without hype or much expected of him at all: Seven gold medals in seven races, with a new world record time in each race. We can't compare him to Phelps or anyone else, really, because that was then and this is now; his race times would not hold up now. We can honor both equally, for what they have done.
As if the commentators were listening to my earlier criticism (which of course they were not), they've done better about explaining instead of gushing and sharing the praise in more directions. I finally found out what Natalie Coughlin is so good on turns (she rotates her body sideways for a stroke, which creates less drag), why a big swimmer with Alain Bernard can negatively affect a smaller swimmer (backwash at the turn), and why Phelp's unusual body is so ideal for swimming (his arm span is 6'7", three inches longer than his height; his feet are size 14 and bend an extra 15 degrees at the ankle, allowing him to use them much more as flippers).
Interestingly, after Jason Lezak won Bronze in the only event where he swam individually at this Olympics, the men's 100m freestyle, he was interviewed by Rowdy Gaines. During the course of the interview, Gaines quite appropriately brought up the most exciting swim of this games so far, Lezak's anchor leg of the 4x100 free relay with a split of 46.06. However, Gaines veered off into Phelpsomania, stating "You got Michael his gold in that event." With a slight smile and a steady voice, Lezak replied "I did not swim that race to win a gold for Michael." Hear, hear! When this was replayed with Bob Costas present, Costas appeared unable to take it in, although Gaines did and seemed to appreciate Lezak drawing a lane in the pool, as it were: He is not Phelps' minion.
And, from what I can see, Phelps is very aware of that. He seems to be close to his male cohorts. It's the press who have attempted to make him into the Only Swimmer that Matters -- and for too many of them, it's for a commercial bottom line, not even from pure love of sport.
Speaking of commercialism: I don't remember previous Olympics' coverage showing every single heat and semifinal as this one has (51 in total). I personally love swimming, but it occurred to me that because of watching all these non-decisive races, I'm missing all the other events that could be covered. Track & Field begin tomorrow, which has a similar multitude of events and voluminous numbers of competitors to be winnowed down to final races. I'll be watching to see if all those heats are aired as well. If not, I'll raise the question of whether this is pure commercialism -- i.e., give viewers only what is most popular -- or, dare I say it, because most of the athletes in swimming are white and most of the athletes in track & field are NOT white? A discussion to be continued, after more observation.
Locally (I live in Austin, Texas) there's a great deal of credit being given to Longhorn Aquatics at the University of Texas, where a huge number of these swimmers train -- some of them not even pros yet, still students at UT. Since I should plug my home town at least once, the following swimmers are from the Longhorn program: Ricky Berens, Hee-Jin Chang (swimming for China), Ian Crocker, Susana Escobar (swimming for Mexico), Brendan Hansen, Kathleen Hersey, Aaron Peirsol, Scott Spann, Garrett Weber-Gale, and Dave Walters.
While I'm plugging, I discovered a blog I read regularly is running GREAT posts about the Olympics with cultural and sociological commentary, covering territory I'm not: Sue Katz Consenting Adult. I especially liked her report on the older athletes who find a niche in some sports, Boomer Olympians.
Also, the Guardian UK wrote a pre-Olympics article which is highly educational and entertaining, Game For Anything, in which they sent eight of their reporters out in crash courses for competitions. These intrepid writers report back on the finer points of steeple chase, front crawl, shot put, fencing, gymnastics, rowing, high jump, and BMX. It's a great read.
Returning to attire: The aforementioned LZR swimsuits show the men swimmers constantly adjusting their shoulder straps and arm holes as compulsively as the women. I was happy to see it's not just us: When you wear a tight garment that lets flesh bulge out, you simply are not as comfortable in it. (Plus the nervousness factor, I'm sure.) In my freshman year of high school, our basketball uniforms were the old-fashioned style with shorts that were more like panties and arm sleeves in a baby-doll style. I remember our coach screaming at us during one time-out because somebody had been pushing her ass-cheek back into her suit instead of catching the ball on a pass.
The next year, new suits were bought for both the boys and girls' basketball teams, and after heated lobbying on our part, we got the same style as the boys -- roomy sleeves, breathable fabric, long-legged and baggy shorts with wide waistbands. I still remember the glorious freedom I felt when I first put mine on, not only the ease of movement but, even more, the relief from having to worry about exposure. When I watch women doing strenuous movements in leotards and see them constantly reaching to their bottoms to make sure the fabric hasn't ridden up too far, I feel for them. I suspect, as one commenter said, it's about the look rather than the function -- otherwise, men would be wanting to compete in leotards as well.
And, finally, regarding commentary, race, and class inequality at the games: I was watching in 2000 when Eric Moussambani swam his heat for the men's 100 meter freestyle. I was leaned forward cheering for him every agonizing stroke of the final 50 meters, and also laughing wildly: How on earth had this guy gotten to the Olympics? The last few meters, it looked like someone might need to jump in and pull him out. He was immediately dubbed "Eric the Eel".
Turns out, according to Wikipedia, he "gained entry to the Olympics without meeting the minimum qualification requirements via a wildcard draw designed to encourage developing countries without expensive training facilities to participate." In other words, poor countries are given a ticket to compete but no funding to support their athletes. What I remember from interviews at the time, he had no access to an Olympic-sized pool and therefore trained in a hotel pool that was 20 meters long, so 50 meters was 2.5 times what he usually swam. He had only been training for eight months, and he did it for the honor of his country.
It stopped being funny at that point. Below is a Youtube video of Eric Moussambani's swim, the most respectful one I could find (and it's not entirely free of crap).
When I checked the NBC site to see who is competing from his country this year, I found under the entry for Equatorial Guinea a brief reference to Moussambani which stated "he had only learned to swim eight months before, and in crocodile-infested waters." This is directly contradicted by my memory of his history and also by that of Wikipedia, and it smacks of appalling racial stereotyping.
To make matters worse, last night the NBC anchor ran another video of a swimmer from who was the sole competitor for a poor African country (I didn't catch the name and I cannot find it by searching the NBC site). He was swimming in a heat and came in dead last. The commentator prefaced it by going from an image of (guess who) Michael Phelps to the heat, stating "And now, from the sublime to, well, also the sublime but in an entirely different way". He laughed throughout the video. His tone was utterly condescending. If you can supply the name of this swimmer and country, I'd appreciate it.
Professionalism in sports is not the problem: Paying athletes is on a par with paying artists and other non-profit endeavors, in my opinion. It's who is controlling the endeavor (i.e., community vs. corporate or government), and how fair is the access that matters most. Paying lip-service to access while providing no money for athletes to train is disingenuous at best. I admit it's a stretch to ask wealthy superpowers to set aside some of our largesse to create sports program for boys and girls in the countries we tend to exploit, especially since those kids will likely grow up to be crackerjack competitors -- but can you imagine the Olympics which would result from a truly leveled playing field? (Pun intended.)
(Stephanie Rice wins 200m individual relay, photo from China Daily)
WORLD RECORDS IN SWIMMING SET ON AUGUST 12 AND 13: Alain Bernard of France in Men's 100m Freestyle: 47.20 WR (in the semifinal) Federica Pellegrini of Italy in Women's 200m Freestyle: 1:54.82 WR (won Gold) Michael Phelps of U.S. in Men's 200m Butterfly: 1:52.03 WR (won Gold) Michael Phelps of U.S. in Men's 200m Freestyle: 1:42.96 WR (won Gold) Aaron Peirsol of U.S. in Men's 100m Backstroke: 52.54 WR (won Gold) Stephanie Rice of Australia in Women's 200m Individual Medley: 2:08.45 WR (won Gold) Ricky Berens, Ryan Lochte, Michael Phelps, and Peter Vanderkaay of US in Men's 4x200 Freestyle Relay: 6:58.56 WR (won Gold)
OLYMPIC RECORDS IN SWIMMING SET ON AUGUST 12 AND 13: Paolo Bossini of Italy in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.98 OR (in the heats) Kirsty Coventry of Zimbabwe in Women's 200m Individual Medley: 2:09.53 OR (in the semifinal) Daniel Gyurta of Hungary (beating record set by Paolo Bossini in previous heat same day) in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.68 OR (in the heats) Leisel Jones of Australia in Women's 100m Breaststroke: 1:05.17 OR (won Gold) Kosuke Kitajima of Japan in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.61 OR (in the semifinal) Rebecca Soni of U.S. in Women's 200m Breaststroke: 2:22.17 OR (in the heats) Coralie Balmy, Celine Couderc, Camille Muffat, and Alena Popchanka of France in Women's 4x200m Freestyle Relay: 7:50.37 OR (in the heats) Ricky Berens, Klete Keller, Erik Vendt, and David Walters in Men's 4x200 Freestyle Relay: 7:04.66 OR (in the heats)
P.S. NBC, PLEASE stop doing segments on reporters trying to eat fried scorpions. It's junior high "let's make fun of what other people eat" behavior. Get over it.
I grew up in Tucson. My mother still lives there. Mom's a Magistrate (a judge)(part-time) in the Tucson City Court. Tucson is home; I keep up on its politics and happenings.
One of the people I personally admire enormously in Tucson is Isabel Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender.
Isabel Garcia, Tucson Strategy Meeting, June 3, 2000. photo unknown.
Now Ms. Garcia is under brutal attack from right-wing hate groups for daring to point out that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is an asshole.
Well, he is (an asshole) and good for her for pointing it out. The camera hog was out of his county, on a book tour down to Tucson, and there was a protest which Ms. Garcia attended, during which piñata's of the sheriff were beaten. She laughed, and ended up with the head of one of the piñatas.
Clobbering a piñata of a hated politician is of course, an old and honored tradition. Though it drove the right-wing haters nuts.
That's different from what the radio shock-jock above did to Ms. Garcia. He took a piñata head, fondled it, objectified the body he attached it to, and was just, creepy.
Isabel Garcia has been defended by supporters throughout Tucson, Arizona, in letters and in editorials. And now the hate-jock is in full retreat as his advertising base crumbles.
Never retreat from a bully; always fight back.
Bravo Isabel Garcia, my favorite strong person of the day.
Daughter #3, Kyle, 18, and I are sitting on the bed in my room. It's 1:56 AM Monday morning. Sunday, she and her friend Jessica were at a street festival.
Kyle is pissed.
Kyle (verbal)
I must have got hit on 40 times today.
So there's this old guy on a bike who must be at least 80 and he wolf-whistled at me as he rides past. And I wanted to run after him and push him over and then hail down one of the nearby cops and be like, "This mother-fucker is riding without a helmet."
Jessica and I were just sitting on a bench, chatting with a grandfather named Elton. So then there's this black guy who goes by with his posse and he walks by eying us up and down. About two minutes later he comes back by himself and he says, "How you doing" and I stare at him like, "Are you seriously talking to me?"
He says, "What's your name?"
And I say "Are you really going to ask me my name without offering your own, first?"
He give me his name.
Then he says "How are you."
I say "I'm Kyle and I'm fine." And I shake his hand. To be polite.
He asks Jessica her name to which she replies "Satan."
She's all slumped back on the bench with her arms crossed, glaring up a storm. She looks PISSED.
And he says, "Oh, you gonna be all evil?"
She's like, "Yeah."
And he says, "So am I, just like, wasting my time here?"
She looks at him like, "Boy... you must be stupid." And she says, "Yeah."
Then he looks at me and says, "But not with you, though."
I look at him like, "Boy, you must be REALLY stupid." And I say, "I'm gay." Which is a a lie, though I do definitely like women. (Editor's note: Kyle is bisexual.)
It takes him an entire minute to finally comprehend this. I finally see his "Ohhh" as he gets it. The boy must be really stupid.
He opens his mouth to speak and Jessica says "I'm gay too. We're gay together" and grabs my hand.
I smile and say "Sorry. We're not interested."
He leaves.
He walks about 30 feet away to where his posse's been standing watching the interaction. They keep laughing and gesturing back towards us.
Jessica's been getting really irritated, mostly because she's hormonal and pregnant. She actually shouts over at them, "If you're going to talk about someone, you might want to think about not doing it where they can still hear you."
The grandpa (Elton) we were with laughs and says, "God, some guys are just stupid." We return to our discussion.
About ten minutes go past.
The asshole comes back. We look up at him like "You came back. Are you kidding me?"
Then, joy of all joys... He says, "I want you two to kiss to prove that you're lesbians."
Now I kiss girls all the time. I kiss my gay girlfriends. I kiss my straight girlfriends. Now Jessica's also bi, so kissing girls? It's in the norm.
The two of us turn towards each other and lean in a bit before we STOP. And look at each other. Like... What the fuck?
And then we turn back to this guy like -- What the fuck?
In my head I'm like, "Hold the fuck on. Am I really going to sit here and submit to this asshole to prove something that's really none of his fucking business?"
I take off my sunglasses to get a better look at the guy. He looks me up and down like "Look at you and your sexy self." I ignore the comment entirely.
"Why would it matter if we're lying?" I say.
"It matters."
"Why?"
It's my business if you're lying to me."
I smile a wicked smile. "Actually, it's not your business."
"But-"
"No, if we're lying to you, it's our business."
In my head I'm thinking, "Don't lunge, don't lunge, don't lunge."
Jessica snickers at his frustrated look and I imagine he's thinking something like... "Bitches with tits like that, in skirts that short, are not supposed to talk back. What the fuck." Only less sensibly.
He leaves in a huff and Jessica and I launch into a righteous fit.
Jessica starts. "What a fucking asshole!"
Me: "Seriously! I mean, 'I want you to prove you're lesbians?' No. No fucking way am I going to be one of those girls who kisses other girls to impress guys. I'm not going to be one of those girls who sacrifices my dignity or self-worth so some fuckass can get a bloody eye full. I mean like, I'm not, we're not fucking here right now for him and his fucking friends to look at. Fuck."
"Dude, I was totally about to go ballistic on that bitch, like no lie. I almost jumped the fuck up and mauled that guy. The only reason I didn't is because I have to protect my baby." She lays a hand on her stomach, snarling.
"Well he's gone now and good fucking riddance. Pfft, like we're going to just kiss because he tells us too. I mean, I totally almost did because it's not even a big deal, not like we haven't before."
"I know dude, like I leaned in and everything."
"It took me a minute to realize and stop myself."
"Grrrr..."
"Grrrr..."
Elton laughs.
"Dad... GUYS SUCK!"
"Yes apple-strudel, they do."
"I am not a pastry. (Pause.) Why do they suck so much?"
"Testosterone. And they were raised to disrespect women. The testosterone poisoning starts to end around 25, but by then it's too late for most of them. The ones that can be saved, you have to look for."
"Guys suck."
"And usually not very well."
Kyle laughs, but isn't happy. Me neither. It's an unhappy truth she's learning.
