Frogs and Ravens

Healthy Frustration

If nothing else, the primary run between Clinton and Obama has, I believe, been useful for opening dialogs among progressives about sexism, racism, and other forms of embedded privilege.

I'm not going to deny that it has been ugly.  Some "progressive" sites have proven to be anything but, instead being rabid partisans defending their candidate against all comers, as if that candidate is the second coming.  The disconnect between the means and the stated ends of getting a "progressive" (which in this case gets reduced down to "not Bush" or "not the GOP") candidate in office is shocking and brutal.

Yet it also seems to me that I'm seeing something good emerge from the fray - at least on blogs like Shakesville.  What I am seeing is a massive cluesticking of progressives about the extent of their privilege, about where their blind spots lie, and so on.  I see men being startled to realize that, yes, they are feminists.  I see straight people learning to see homophobia - and learning to respect the experience and wisdom of their GLBT allies when those allies call out homophobia that these straight progressives don't see.  And I see white people learning to admit their privilege and racist blinkers, and to listen when people of color explain what they see.

I generally think I'm pretty good on the feminism thing, and on the GLBT issues, and with issues of classism, or ageism, or fat-phobia.  I am learning, however, that I have much farther to go in terms of racism, particularly the racism that is directed towards black men and women.

Still Not Getting It

Okay, so I was over at Shakespeare's Sister the other day, reading this post about the Supreme Court, and how important it is to not let it slide further to the right.  I'm nodding my head in agreement, reading the comments thread, and then I hit this comment:

ANYONE who thinks there is no difference between the parties,

ANYONE who is tempted to waste your vote an a green candidate as a matter of principal [sic],

ANYONE who thinks Ron Paul makes sense and might be a better choice than an "establishment" candidate of wither [sic] party,. . . . .

. . . remember those three words.  [The Supreme Court]

And I just lost it.  (Obscenity-laden response below the fold.)

Never-ending Nightmare

This is purely and simply terrifying.

I grow increasingly sceptical about the transformative powers of a 2008 election - if we even get to have one. These are not the actions of people who plan to leave office or give up power.

If you have a blog, please get out the word. People need to know about this.

Whatever Nation

Over the last few days I've been noting a groundswell of blog posts about American apathy, banality and greed.* I don't know if I understand what triggered it (reaction to Katrina? 9/11?) but it is striking to me that the same notes are being sounded again and again.

Politics vs. politics

Once again, there's a dust-up in the political blogosphere in which the specter of the sexist / racist / homophobic / ist-ist "progressive" blogger raises an ugly head. I'm not going to talk about this incident, because it's one of many and it's been well-handled by people who were on the scene over the weekend, unlike myself.

What I am going to talk about is something that I see underlying this recurrent dynamic: the tension between Politics and politics, and the people who rally to those respective flags.

Same Song, Same Dance

Let's see.

Synopsis:

We're facing a potential, yet real threat that has global scope. Check.

One crucial point relative to this threat is our ports, border crossings, and national transportation network. Check.

International cooperation is needed to deal with the threat effectively. Check.

Should the threat manifest in the United States, it will require effective and timely federal intervention to minimize damage. Check.

We have received warning ahead of time about the probability and scope of this problem, and can deal with it effectively if we put our minds to it. Check.

The Bush Administration's response to this problem:

Downplay the seriousness of the threat inasmuch as dealing with it will get in the way of business of usual. Check.

Ignore the transportation aspect of the problem. Check.

Assume an us-first, go-it-alone attitude to the problem. Check.

Defund the agencies capable of handling the repercussions domestically, use them as rewards for supportive but incompetent cronies, and place an emphasis on local management -- even though it is a large-scale problem that needs to be handled on the large scale as well as small. Check.

Pretend that the repercussions will be minor at best, or that the problem can be dealt with by superficial, short-term individual lifestyle choices. Check.

Distract Americans and gin up political support by saber-rattling at an unrelated group of people or an unrelated problem (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, steroids in baseball, Mexican immigration...). Check.

Divert needed national resources and manpower to handle the aftermath of the saber-rattling, short-changing the agencies and groups needed to handle the actual threat. Check.

Spend all available press and air time dwelling on the unrelated problem, while saying little to nothing about the actual threat. Check.

The mainstream media's response to the problem:

Run a short piece about the problem deep inside the paper. Check.

Isolate the few aspects of the problem that make people feel worried, helpless, angry or afraid, and dwell on them at sensationalized length. Check.

Downplay coverage of practical options for dealing with the problem. When covering them, emphasize those that involve individual lifestyle choices, particularly choices that are available only to wealthy or middle-class, dual-income households. Check.

Provide extensive, "objective" coverage of superficial promises by the Adminstration that something will be done, without further analysis of promises' feasibility or cost. Check.

Disparge critics of the Administration or the press by casting them as alarmist, "angry," incapable of seeing the larger picture, doing this for "political reasons," or even anti-American. Check.

Provide extensive coverage of Democrats waffling in public, tepidly protesting in a feeble way, or assertively backing up the Administration's talking points. Check.

The Democrats' response:

Waffle in public. Check.

Self-flagellate while making calls for "civility," "cooperation," and "unity." Check.

Talk about how they should talk about the issue. Check.

Support and reinforce the Administration's talking points. Check.

Undercut and disparage members of the party who offer criticism of the Administration. If said criticism is delivered in a passionate manner, or includes criticism of the party leadership, cast critic as "angry" or "radical." Check.

Froth at mouth about "leftists," "radicals," and/or bloggers. Refuse to say anything negative about the mainstream press, right-wingers, or coporations. Check.

Invoke Nader when the chatter about third parties gets too loud for comfort. Check.

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about terrorism, global warming, or bird flu. It works out the same every. damn. time.

I don't know about you, but I'm really, really tired of this.

Cross-posted at Shakespeare's Sister.

El Fuego

These parts of the country were difficult ones to settle, being arid and remote. But even from the beginning they were an essential part of the ecoscape.

They were vital parts of the local community, encouraging the growth of plants and seeds, clearing the land, warming cold hands in winter, cooking beloved meals, forging weapons.

The land needed them, and they needed the land.

As the years rolled on, they became less welcome, constrained into increasingly small zones, controlled. They were bad for the economy, it was said. They took away homes and food from children. They damaged the environment when they passed through. They brought ruin to small businesses and homeowners, while large developers and agribusiness used them to consolidate political and economic power.

They were demonized in the press. Cartoon animals, including one sponsored by the government, taught children to shun and fear them. Politicians rose and fell depending on how they responded to the threats they posed -- or were perceived to pose.

The fuel built up.

They did not go away. They lingered furtively in the homes of others, offering warmth and food to the sick and the young, as they had always done. They were vital to the local economy, though feared and constrained. They were part of religious rituals, essential to church functions. They showed up at children's birthday parties, stood in the background as couples courted in dim, romantic restaurants, were part of the celebrations on the Fourth of July. They were there in wars fought on foreign soil.

Demonized, ignored, essential, persistent... all around them the fuel built up.

Wildfire was, perhaps, inevitable. Too many years had passed. Or have they?

I'm not talking about immigrants, illegal or otherwise. I am talking about the history of fire in the Southwest.

Or am I?

I'm In

The Dark Wraith has a great idea for what to do with that $100 bribe the GOP wants to distribute to offset high gas prices...

Dog in the Manger

If you are a progressive these days, your options as a voter are rather limited. Guess what? If HR4694, aka the "Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Bill," passes, they will be more limited still.

Free Speech, Religion and Secular Society

The reluctant blogger strikes again... Every time one of these big media/ blogospheric/ political brouhahas gets revved up, I start out believing that I will stay out of the fray. There's so much sound, and fury, and blah-di-blah that I feel like there's not much point in adding to it. But eventually there's a tipping point when it all gets to be too much and I have to blog about it or burst. So here we go. On to the Great Comics War of 2006.

For those of you previously lucky enough to avoid this topic, here's the nutshell version. Political cartoons depicting Mohammed and Islam (some neutrally, some offensively) are published in Danish newspapers. Angry Muslim groups protest, a number violently, striking out at the political embassies of the countries to which the papers belong. U.S. voices, religious and political, including a number on the right wing, rush to the verbal defense of the Danish papers and join their voices to an anti-Islamic backlash. Iran, unable to sit by, decides to add to the noise by announcing its intentions to publish cartoons mocking the Holocaust as a way to provoke "the West" into hypocrisy (that is, it hopes that the outrage against such cartoons will make mock of the cries in defense of free speech as being more about defamining Islam than civil rights).

It's exhausting and messy, to say the least, and everyone and their sibling seem to have multiple opinions on it. As, of course, do I.

It seems to me that there are three strands to this brangle, and they keep getting uncomfortably tangled up. So I want to separate them out, to see if it makes more sense that way.

(Warning: HUGE post ahead.)