I'd like to reinvigorate this blog. But I don't think my invective-laden tirades do anybody any good. I believe this to be the case in the main because the topics are too general and vague. Everyone has their "pie-in-the-sky" ideas about how to make the world better, or more commonly, what is wrong with the world. Thus, I'm launching a new feature that I call "what they should've said".
And for this weeks installment I'm going to give my responses to two people who have been in the news lately.
The first is Anthony Weiner. At his press conference what he should've said is this:
"Yes. I took a lewd picture of myself and sent it to some women. I have cheated on my wife. So what. It has nothing to do with my abilities as a legislator, or my ability to improve the lives of my constituents in my district in New York. I realize that what I have done will hurt my family and my wife, but that is my business and I will have to deal with it. I won't say another word about it. As for my future in politics, that is up to the people of (insert name of his district). They put me here, they know what I have done, and they alone will decide my future, as is the mechanism by which this republic functions. I won't waste anyone's time with false tears and manufactured contrition, written by an overly paid publicist, as have so many of my fellow colleagues. I'm not perfect. I've never claimed to be. And I'm no hypocrite. I have not campaigned for, or championed anything that could resemble social conservatism or religious hegemony that so many on the right of the aisle routinely do. I don't want your vote because you think you can have a beer with me. I don't want your vote because you think I have the same morals and ethics as you. I don't want your vote because we worship the same God. I want your vote because you think I'm good at my job, and that I make the lives of the people I'm sent to Washington to represent, better.
I am sorry if I have disappointed anyone. But my personal life is my own business. I have broken no laws; and i will not step down. I'm a good legislator; and I will continue to be. That is all".
If he would've said that..he'd be talked about forever. He'd look strong as an ox! And he might actually help us escape this awful pattern of getting distracted by the personal lives or our elected officials and pay more attention to the routine shredding of the constitution of which they try with all their might to prevent us from noticing.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
A commentary on friendship
I've always been fascinated with friendships. I have been blessed with many throughout my life. I can't remember a time when I didn't always have a dozen or so people that I could call to do anything at any given time. I don't think that is anything odd when I was in high school or college. But as I got into my mid-20's I think that the number of people that most people routinely spend time with that are not family or colleagues (the definition of "friends" from here on it)plummets. But my friendship levels did not. They are probably as high as they ever were, or perhaps even higher. I can honestly say that four or five of my closest high school friends, guys who were always hanging out in large groups, have now lost anything resembling that. Their time is spent with family and work first, and maybe with one or two close friends in the little bit of free time that they can round up.
I am inclined to say that I find this sad, but i don't. They are both happy men, with wives and families that they adore. I suppose that it is the natural order of things. Although I don't think that this is particularly sad in general, I think losing all my friendships would suck. I just can't imagine a life without dozens of close friends. And so I prioritize friends as high as I can.
But that leads me to my next question. How high should you prioritize friends? The benefits are obvious; you have fun with your friends. However, when you have a child there can only be so many hours in the day and time spent doing one thing typically takes away from time spent doing something else. It also makes matters more difficult when you have a large group of equal friends. If you had a single friend; you could stay equally close with that person because all your "friend" time could go that direction. But when you have multiple groups; something has got to give.
There is also an emotional cost to trying maintain friends. One thing I've learned being part of a large network of friends is that no matter how one tries to be inclusive, people always get left out. And when this happens, either feelings get hurt or people re-evaluate their friendships. If you only have a small amount of time to hang out with some friends you aren't likely to invest that time with someone who routinely leaves you out. The reasons are not just petty, time spent with friends leads to stories and memories, and these memories compound over time. If you miss out on too many events, you are out of the loop, and hanging out just isn't the same anymore. Everyone has been there before, like say, if a friend of yours from high school has a group of college friends coming over. They will just talk and talk about the good ole times and you are just a fly on the wall. This never works out.
Although this inevitable fall is somewhat petty as well. Your time may not mean jack shit to anyone else, but its infinitely precious to you. And its hard to justify spending it with someone who doesn't seem to want to spend time equally with you. These things happen all the time as friends "fall off". What exactly is that? It doesn't mean that there is a big fight or a change in one's life, but they start making plans less frequently, that frequency hits a tipping point, and then viola! you reach a point of "I used to hang out with them" from "my good friend who I see all the time". These events happen all the time and they fell like real losses. And I suppose the last thing I can say about it is that perhaps this is why most families fall out with their large networks; they seem to be less and less involved in things and then one day , presto, chango, 10 years goes by and nobody has thought to call. when you put it that way , it is definitely sad.
I am inclined to say that I find this sad, but i don't. They are both happy men, with wives and families that they adore. I suppose that it is the natural order of things. Although I don't think that this is particularly sad in general, I think losing all my friendships would suck. I just can't imagine a life without dozens of close friends. And so I prioritize friends as high as I can.
But that leads me to my next question. How high should you prioritize friends? The benefits are obvious; you have fun with your friends. However, when you have a child there can only be so many hours in the day and time spent doing one thing typically takes away from time spent doing something else. It also makes matters more difficult when you have a large group of equal friends. If you had a single friend; you could stay equally close with that person because all your "friend" time could go that direction. But when you have multiple groups; something has got to give.
There is also an emotional cost to trying maintain friends. One thing I've learned being part of a large network of friends is that no matter how one tries to be inclusive, people always get left out. And when this happens, either feelings get hurt or people re-evaluate their friendships. If you only have a small amount of time to hang out with some friends you aren't likely to invest that time with someone who routinely leaves you out. The reasons are not just petty, time spent with friends leads to stories and memories, and these memories compound over time. If you miss out on too many events, you are out of the loop, and hanging out just isn't the same anymore. Everyone has been there before, like say, if a friend of yours from high school has a group of college friends coming over. They will just talk and talk about the good ole times and you are just a fly on the wall. This never works out.
Although this inevitable fall is somewhat petty as well. Your time may not mean jack shit to anyone else, but its infinitely precious to you. And its hard to justify spending it with someone who doesn't seem to want to spend time equally with you. These things happen all the time as friends "fall off". What exactly is that? It doesn't mean that there is a big fight or a change in one's life, but they start making plans less frequently, that frequency hits a tipping point, and then viola! you reach a point of "I used to hang out with them" from "my good friend who I see all the time". These events happen all the time and they fell like real losses. And I suppose the last thing I can say about it is that perhaps this is why most families fall out with their large networks; they seem to be less and less involved in things and then one day , presto, chango, 10 years goes by and nobody has thought to call. when you put it that way , it is definitely sad.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Consequences of Wealth Dispariites part 2
I've been spouting off about wealth disparity on, and off now for years. You can go back in this blog and see that I've touched on it numerous times. It seems to be coming more and more to the forefront. Nicholas Kristoff has written an excellent piece on the matter in his latest NY Times column: "Our Banana Republic"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html?partner=rss&emc=rss .
He mentions how our wealth disparity is much worse than some of the countries we loved to call Banana Republics. He then goes on to claim that the real divide in this country is the split between corporate interests and average citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled this year that a corporation is extended the same first amendment rights as actual people when it comes to donating money. This is the prime example illustrating how if there is a war of capital vs. labor in this country (to borrow an old concept that should be brought back), the capital is crushing the labor.
You almost can not get ahead on your own merit, if you live in a major metropolitan area and are a salaried worker. The jobs that used to support that possibility have all been off-shored. And whats worse, is that the liberals in this country continue to support a democratic party that they believe supports their ideals for a more balanced economy, but it was the Clinton Administration that actually got the ball rolling in the free trade arena. For some reason Americans love stuff that has the word "free" in it (free trade, free market, free-dom), but in this case, free trade doesn't really mean trade in the way you think. For some reason stupid middle americans love how this sounds because it appeals to their sense of fairness. But it will not only never benefit anyone who doesn't own a large company that sells or busy things from China, it will most definitely hurt you. It will most likey involve the loss of a job, or the necesarry reduction in wages to keep your job here. Not enough people seem to get this. I didn't. Free trade actually appealed to my sense of fairness. But I realize now that it doesn't work for us. It may work great for a C-level executive of a fortune 500 company; or for anyone who works fairly high up the food chain in such a place. But it will only make everyone elses life worse. Its great that shit at walmart costs 10% less than it would w/o globalization, but that doesn't do you any good if you don't have a job. So the first problem is that not enough people "get it". The second problem is that even if they do, they don't realize that neither party is putting forth ideas that help.
There are millions of unemployed/underemployed people, many living in the upper midwest "rust belt". They have lost all their manufacturing jobs, which are not coming back. What do you propose that these people do? Where are the jobs that are going to allow them to make enough money to buy a house, save money for a nice retirement and be able to put their kids through college. Because without the opportunity to do that, nobody is going to be happy. That is really all the american dream boils down to. It used to be that if the majority of the people had a chance at the very modest aforementioned life, we were happy. But it seems now that we'd rather craft a society where 1 in 1000 people are going to "make it" (however possible) and have millions and millions; and everyone else will struggle. Nobody on capital hill wants to help you if your poor. They don't care about you. The wealth disparity will keep growing, and this is definitely not sustainable.
Obviously, politicians only want to get elected. So they push issues that are easy to understand and get people riled up: immigration, abortion, government spending (without actually outlining percentages of GDP, and putting the spending in perspective), and gun rights, just to name a few. When there are so many more important issues that just don't get discussed. This is mainly because they are complicated issues that are impossible to be on one side or the other. They are not two sided. There is no for or against when the question is "how should government spend its money?", or "how do we get more well paying jobs for people with bachelors degrees or less?", "how do we balance off our trade deficit?", and even, "how far is too far when police put GPS units on peoples cars?". A discussion about any of those issues will not increase ratings at msnbc or fox. Thus, politicians waste little time talking them up. "If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got", may be a stupid corporate slogan to make you work harder, but it carries an important message. Dems and Repubs are just pepsi and coke. You may prefer one flavor slightly to the other, but so long as you are drinking either you are still rotting your teeth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html?partner=rss&emc=rss .
He mentions how our wealth disparity is much worse than some of the countries we loved to call Banana Republics. He then goes on to claim that the real divide in this country is the split between corporate interests and average citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled this year that a corporation is extended the same first amendment rights as actual people when it comes to donating money. This is the prime example illustrating how if there is a war of capital vs. labor in this country (to borrow an old concept that should be brought back), the capital is crushing the labor.
You almost can not get ahead on your own merit, if you live in a major metropolitan area and are a salaried worker. The jobs that used to support that possibility have all been off-shored. And whats worse, is that the liberals in this country continue to support a democratic party that they believe supports their ideals for a more balanced economy, but it was the Clinton Administration that actually got the ball rolling in the free trade arena. For some reason Americans love stuff that has the word "free" in it (free trade, free market, free-dom), but in this case, free trade doesn't really mean trade in the way you think. For some reason stupid middle americans love how this sounds because it appeals to their sense of fairness. But it will not only never benefit anyone who doesn't own a large company that sells or busy things from China, it will most definitely hurt you. It will most likey involve the loss of a job, or the necesarry reduction in wages to keep your job here. Not enough people seem to get this. I didn't. Free trade actually appealed to my sense of fairness. But I realize now that it doesn't work for us. It may work great for a C-level executive of a fortune 500 company; or for anyone who works fairly high up the food chain in such a place. But it will only make everyone elses life worse. Its great that shit at walmart costs 10% less than it would w/o globalization, but that doesn't do you any good if you don't have a job. So the first problem is that not enough people "get it". The second problem is that even if they do, they don't realize that neither party is putting forth ideas that help.
There are millions of unemployed/underemployed people, many living in the upper midwest "rust belt". They have lost all their manufacturing jobs, which are not coming back. What do you propose that these people do? Where are the jobs that are going to allow them to make enough money to buy a house, save money for a nice retirement and be able to put their kids through college. Because without the opportunity to do that, nobody is going to be happy. That is really all the american dream boils down to. It used to be that if the majority of the people had a chance at the very modest aforementioned life, we were happy. But it seems now that we'd rather craft a society where 1 in 1000 people are going to "make it" (however possible) and have millions and millions; and everyone else will struggle. Nobody on capital hill wants to help you if your poor. They don't care about you. The wealth disparity will keep growing, and this is definitely not sustainable.
Obviously, politicians only want to get elected. So they push issues that are easy to understand and get people riled up: immigration, abortion, government spending (without actually outlining percentages of GDP, and putting the spending in perspective), and gun rights, just to name a few. When there are so many more important issues that just don't get discussed. This is mainly because they are complicated issues that are impossible to be on one side or the other. They are not two sided. There is no for or against when the question is "how should government spend its money?", or "how do we get more well paying jobs for people with bachelors degrees or less?", "how do we balance off our trade deficit?", and even, "how far is too far when police put GPS units on peoples cars?". A discussion about any of those issues will not increase ratings at msnbc or fox. Thus, politicians waste little time talking them up. "If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got", may be a stupid corporate slogan to make you work harder, but it carries an important message. Dems and Repubs are just pepsi and coke. You may prefer one flavor slightly to the other, but so long as you are drinking either you are still rotting your teeth.
Friday, October 1, 2010
I hate the Tea Party. I welcome the Tea Party
There is no way for a self-respecting scientist to consider any of the Tea Party candidates for even a second. Since I'm not self-respecting, I'll give it a second. They are the most ignorant, awful, loathsome group of closet racists and sheep that I've ever seen. And they might just do some good.
The problem isn't with liberal or progressive ideals. The problem isn't even with conservative ideals. All of these political ideologies have their proper times and places, and I believe the best governments can use bits and pieces of each to govern most effectively. The problem is corruption and systemic failure. Let me ask any Barrack Obama supporters in what ways is he really that different than any of his predecessors. He may be winding down the war in Iraq, but he is amping it up in Afghanistan. So the peace-niks shouldn't be happy with him. He took on healthcare, but did any liberals really get what they wanted? The only real thing to be happy about is that insurance companies can't drop children. Thats pretty good; but nowhere near what he set out to do. For all the political capital he spent on that fight, we now have a system that is going to require you to pay for insurance. Wow! Do you really think people weren't getting health insurance because they didn't want it? Maybe I'm missing some wonkish details of the policy, but it seems that the only big winners are the insurance companies. The Tea Party wants to undo this on the grounds of it being unconstitutional; and I think they may have a point. This is crap. Believe me, if a republican president passed this bill; the democratic bloggers, main stream media, and just about every American that lives inside a major city or suburb, would be screaming their heads off. He would be called a fascist pig and blah blah blah. But a Dem can get away with it. People should be outraged at this legislation.
What else is there? Well, Obama is OK with the federal government increasing their abilities to invade privacy on the internet http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Obama-Administration-Internet-Wiretapping-Wiretapping-Law-privacy,news-8163.html . Obama has not closed gitmo http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6jTooRHtlhvNqlz4NB-jWaaddeAD9I55K882 . So on four really big issues :
1) WAR. no significant difference in terms of financial or human output.
2) Health Care. A whole bunch of fuss over a bill that requires you to pay for it, or else suffer a fine.
3) Privacy. He is basically extending things started with Bush's PATRIOT Act.
4) Human Rights. Gitmo is still open. The talk about torture has just stopped. Its been swept under the rug.
This article sums up what I'm trying to say:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/obamas-failure-making-it-easy-for-republicans-20101001-160zo.html .
So, back to the Tea Party. What the Obama administration proves is that the only real difference between an elephant and a donkey is the sounds they make. The policies keep promoting a large military; they keep the divide between the wealthiest and most poor growing, they keep decreasing our privacy, and reducing our rights. (how about this one for horrific..http://www.asuherald.com/opinion/court-gps-detours-fourth-amendment-1.2344402). Where is Obama on illegal search and seizure. Apparently its ok for the cops to come into your house and put a GPS device on your car, so long as its not in a garage. Basically, if you can afford a garage, the bill of rights applies to you. If not, well, don't expect any privacy.
The tea party wants to tear everything down. If I didn't depend on a healthy government funded dedication to scientific research for my livliehood, I'd be in favor of this too. There isn't much in Washington that isn't tainted with a corrupt big-budget military industrial complex; hypocritical financial industry or greedy corporate lobbyists. This sounds trite, but they don't give a crap about you. Don't believe me, how about this memo from citibank that states just that. Their consultants did an analysis to show that all but the top ~3% of Americans are heading for ruin, but thats OK, because the wealthiest will have enough money to support their industry..(http://www.scribd.com/doc/34641013/Plutonomy) This came from the Michael Moore movie, "Capitalism. A Love Story"
So the Tea Baggers may be dumb as a box of rocks, but they aren't corrupt yet. If they could stay more libertarian and not so much evangelicals; they might be electable. And who knows, could they be much worse than what we got? Maybe highly educated, super-motivated, Rovian-types in the office is the problem. Some slow moving, big dumb animals might just be what we need.
The problem isn't with liberal or progressive ideals. The problem isn't even with conservative ideals. All of these political ideologies have their proper times and places, and I believe the best governments can use bits and pieces of each to govern most effectively. The problem is corruption and systemic failure. Let me ask any Barrack Obama supporters in what ways is he really that different than any of his predecessors. He may be winding down the war in Iraq, but he is amping it up in Afghanistan. So the peace-niks shouldn't be happy with him. He took on healthcare, but did any liberals really get what they wanted? The only real thing to be happy about is that insurance companies can't drop children. Thats pretty good; but nowhere near what he set out to do. For all the political capital he spent on that fight, we now have a system that is going to require you to pay for insurance. Wow! Do you really think people weren't getting health insurance because they didn't want it? Maybe I'm missing some wonkish details of the policy, but it seems that the only big winners are the insurance companies. The Tea Party wants to undo this on the grounds of it being unconstitutional; and I think they may have a point. This is crap. Believe me, if a republican president passed this bill; the democratic bloggers, main stream media, and just about every American that lives inside a major city or suburb, would be screaming their heads off. He would be called a fascist pig and blah blah blah. But a Dem can get away with it. People should be outraged at this legislation.
What else is there? Well, Obama is OK with the federal government increasing their abilities to invade privacy on the internet http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Obama-Administration-Internet-Wiretapping-Wiretapping-Law-privacy,news-8163.html . Obama has not closed gitmo http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6jTooRHtlhvNqlz4NB-jWaaddeAD9I55K882 . So on four really big issues :
1) WAR. no significant difference in terms of financial or human output.
2) Health Care. A whole bunch of fuss over a bill that requires you to pay for it, or else suffer a fine.
3) Privacy. He is basically extending things started with Bush's PATRIOT Act.
4) Human Rights. Gitmo is still open. The talk about torture has just stopped. Its been swept under the rug.
This article sums up what I'm trying to say:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/obamas-failure-making-it-easy-for-republicans-20101001-160zo.html .
So, back to the Tea Party. What the Obama administration proves is that the only real difference between an elephant and a donkey is the sounds they make. The policies keep promoting a large military; they keep the divide between the wealthiest and most poor growing, they keep decreasing our privacy, and reducing our rights. (how about this one for horrific..http://www.asuherald.com/opinion/court-gps-detours-fourth-amendment-1.2344402). Where is Obama on illegal search and seizure. Apparently its ok for the cops to come into your house and put a GPS device on your car, so long as its not in a garage. Basically, if you can afford a garage, the bill of rights applies to you. If not, well, don't expect any privacy.
The tea party wants to tear everything down. If I didn't depend on a healthy government funded dedication to scientific research for my livliehood, I'd be in favor of this too. There isn't much in Washington that isn't tainted with a corrupt big-budget military industrial complex; hypocritical financial industry or greedy corporate lobbyists. This sounds trite, but they don't give a crap about you. Don't believe me, how about this memo from citibank that states just that. Their consultants did an analysis to show that all but the top ~3% of Americans are heading for ruin, but thats OK, because the wealthiest will have enough money to support their industry..(http://www.scribd.com/doc/34641013/Plutonomy) This came from the Michael Moore movie, "Capitalism. A Love Story"
So the Tea Baggers may be dumb as a box of rocks, but they aren't corrupt yet. If they could stay more libertarian and not so much evangelicals; they might be electable. And who knows, could they be much worse than what we got? Maybe highly educated, super-motivated, Rovian-types in the office is the problem. Some slow moving, big dumb animals might just be what we need.
Monday, August 16, 2010
consequences of wealth disparites
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425983109795768.html
I read this article from Peggy Noonan, which was in reference to the Scott (?) Slater, chute exit from the Jet Blue flight, meme. Apparently this event has touched off some skirmishes in the class war that is always going on in the background in this country.
I actually agree with Ms. Noonan's comments. Manners are no longer a matter of any consequence for most Americans. Similarly, and possibly related, is the fact that we are completely informal in our dress. Wealthy Conservatives like Ms. Noonan don't like this. They would love to see all the servants dressed up nice and acting accordingly. And they might, except for one thing, the Nations' wealth disparity. I think that it explains many of our society's ills, that the difference between the wealthy and the not-so has grown so wide, most of us can't plan on retirement, are upside down on our mortgages (or barely treading water), are trapped in our current jobs and current homes because we can't afford health care, and have not been able to sock anything away for a rainy day.
People are bitter and angry because if capitalism is a game, they are losing...badly. And this why the Ayn Randian philosophy of zero goverment intervention into the economy is nice for a novel, but absurd for policy, the people that lose in the game of Capitalism, still exist. They don't just get erased. If they did, and new people were allowed to jump in the game, the model might work. But with millions of "losers" still breathing and trying to make a living, simply ignoring them will ultimately result in a social revolution. Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings.
I read this article from Peggy Noonan, which was in reference to the Scott (?) Slater, chute exit from the Jet Blue flight, meme. Apparently this event has touched off some skirmishes in the class war that is always going on in the background in this country.
I actually agree with Ms. Noonan's comments. Manners are no longer a matter of any consequence for most Americans. Similarly, and possibly related, is the fact that we are completely informal in our dress. Wealthy Conservatives like Ms. Noonan don't like this. They would love to see all the servants dressed up nice and acting accordingly. And they might, except for one thing, the Nations' wealth disparity. I think that it explains many of our society's ills, that the difference between the wealthy and the not-so has grown so wide, most of us can't plan on retirement, are upside down on our mortgages (or barely treading water), are trapped in our current jobs and current homes because we can't afford health care, and have not been able to sock anything away for a rainy day.
People are bitter and angry because if capitalism is a game, they are losing...badly. And this why the Ayn Randian philosophy of zero goverment intervention into the economy is nice for a novel, but absurd for policy, the people that lose in the game of Capitalism, still exist. They don't just get erased. If they did, and new people were allowed to jump in the game, the model might work. But with millions of "losers" still breathing and trying to make a living, simply ignoring them will ultimately result in a social revolution. Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
signs that our nation is rotting from the inside. part 1
I think the USA is rotting from the inside. The main reason is that we hate each other. We are cynical, greedy, lazy and have no cohesive glue binding us together. The USA may be a country and a sovereign state, but we are not a nation. The only commonality that Americans share is our laws. But our laws have run a muck. We are way over litigious and so ready to drop a dime and press charges for the littlest thing that we are all prisoners. And the cops can't help. They are trapped within a system that forces them to follow orders, even when it doesn't make a drop of sense.
Example.
http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story
this guy was arrested for being naked in his own home. The greatest country on the planet overreacts again!
Example.
http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story
this guy was arrested for being naked in his own home. The greatest country on the planet overreacts again!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Identity Politics Alive and Well.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/first.lady/index.html
most people would read that article and think how great it is. But not me. I'm happy that Indian Women are inspired, I guess. And happy that they no longer think they're ugly because of Michelle Obama. But the problem with that is it shows us that this world is still engaged in Identity Politics. People, the globe over, rarely judge people by what say or do or how they think. They judge you by who you are perceived to be. Michelle Obama allows these young women a world away to feel beautiful not because she is smart, funny or accomplished, but because she is the first lady and she has two daughters. Both of those things are out of her control. The message this article sends to me is that women are trying to make their way through the world passively, in terms of what other people judge them to be based on their looks. "Its OK to have dark skin", or its "OK to have two daughters" or "Its good if an ambitious harvard educated lawyer is interested in you". Women should be outraged by this idea.
But its not just women in India. Take a look at the most recent presidential campaign. The democratic party is traditionally one of highly educated lawyers. And the democratic party is also the one known for being friendly to minorities. Who were the two candidates from that party, a women and a black man, both minorities and both Ivy League educated lawyers. The republican party base has recently been: the military, big business and religion. Who were the three candidates for their nomination: John McCain (military family), Mitt Romney (2nd generation multi-millionaire) and Mike Huckabee (ordained minister). The point is not whether I found these candidates worthy, but the point is that it wouldn't really have mattered. We still view people for what they represent and/or look like and not who they are and what they say. When the young Indian Woman feel encouraged by Michelle Obama because of her stance on some important issue and not for how she looks, I'll start to be encouraged.
most people would read that article and think how great it is. But not me. I'm happy that Indian Women are inspired, I guess. And happy that they no longer think they're ugly because of Michelle Obama. But the problem with that is it shows us that this world is still engaged in Identity Politics. People, the globe over, rarely judge people by what say or do or how they think. They judge you by who you are perceived to be. Michelle Obama allows these young women a world away to feel beautiful not because she is smart, funny or accomplished, but because she is the first lady and she has two daughters. Both of those things are out of her control. The message this article sends to me is that women are trying to make their way through the world passively, in terms of what other people judge them to be based on their looks. "Its OK to have dark skin", or its "OK to have two daughters" or "Its good if an ambitious harvard educated lawyer is interested in you". Women should be outraged by this idea.
But its not just women in India. Take a look at the most recent presidential campaign. The democratic party is traditionally one of highly educated lawyers. And the democratic party is also the one known for being friendly to minorities. Who were the two candidates from that party, a women and a black man, both minorities and both Ivy League educated lawyers. The republican party base has recently been: the military, big business and religion. Who were the three candidates for their nomination: John McCain (military family), Mitt Romney (2nd generation multi-millionaire) and Mike Huckabee (ordained minister). The point is not whether I found these candidates worthy, but the point is that it wouldn't really have mattered. We still view people for what they represent and/or look like and not who they are and what they say. When the young Indian Woman feel encouraged by Michelle Obama because of her stance on some important issue and not for how she looks, I'll start to be encouraged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)