Glenn Greenwald, writing a week or two ago:

In the past two weeks, the following events transpired. A Department of Justice memo, authored by John Yoo, was released which authorized torture and presidential lawbreaking. It was revealed that the Bush administration declared the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be inapplicable to “domestic military operations” within the U.S. The U.S. Attorney General appears to have fabricated a key event leading to the 9/11 attacks and made patently false statements about surveillance laws and related lawsuits. Barack Obama went bowling in Pennsylvania and had a low score.

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

“Yoo and torture” - 102

“Mukasey and 9/11″ — 73

“Yoo and Fourth Amendment” — 16

“Obama and bowling” — 1,043

“Obama and Wright” — More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

“Obama and patriotism” - 1,607

“Clinton and Lewinsky” — 1,079

And as Eric Boehlert documents, even Iraq — that little five-year U.S. occupation with no end in sight — has been virtually written out of the media narrative in favor of mindless, stupid, vapid chatter of the type referenced above.

Via Kate at Shakesville (and pointed out to me by Bean):

The video is in two rough halves: the first half is a montage of anti-Clinton misogyny in the mainstream media (although you can find the same thing from some so-called progressives). The second half is a loving montage of Clinton pics (I love the black and white pic with striped pants) set to a really cool pop song.

The open misogyny displayed towards Clinton by media figures is, simply, disgusting. As Judith Hope said:

You know, no matter who your favorite candidate for president may be, can American women continue to look the other way while the national media spews such sexist contempt? If we learn nothing else from this long Democratic primary season, we now know this: It is still ‘open season’ on American women.

But there’s one element that keeps me from endorsing this video wholeheartedly; the videomaker includes Keith Olbermann bashing Clinton for not distancing herself from Geraldine Ferraro’s infamous comments. For all I know Olbermann is a sexist asshat (I don’t watch his show), but his Ferraro comments are anti-racist, not misogynist. Including anti-racism within a montage of vile misogynist crap, as if the two were interchangable or in any way comparable, is offensive.

P.S. Check out this recent Media Matters column reporting more misogyny on parade, this time from the delightfully fair and balanced, not at all biased people at Fox. curtsy: Chet at Shakesville.

Vivian Stringer is the head coach of the Rutger’s women’s basketball team, so many of you may have heard her name in the wake of Don Imus’s racist and sexist comments.  However, her story and her influence as a pioneering woman extends well beyond the Imus controversy.  She has an amazing biography, and she is undoubtably a pioneering African American woman.  Her influence as a role model extends well beyond her coaching background, as revealed in the press surrounding the book:

 A gifted athlete, she had to fight for a place on an all-white cheerleading squad in the sixties. In 1981, just as her coaching career was taking off, her fourteen-month-old daughter, Nina, was stricken with spinal meningitis. Nina would never walk or talk again. Still grieving, Stringer brought a small, poor, historically black college to the national championships—a triumph hailed as “Hoosiers with an all-female cast.” In 1991, her husband, Bill—her staunchest supporter, the father of her children, and the love of her life—fell dead of a sudden heartattack, but that same year, she led yet another young team to the Final Four. Through these dark times and others—including her bout with cancer, shared here for the first time—Stringer has carried her burdens with grace. Given her history, it was no surprise that she led her team to respond to Don Imus’s slurs with dignity and courage.

Standing Tall is a story of quiet strength in the face of punishing odds. Above all, it is an extraordinary love story—love for the game, for the players she has coached, for her close-knit family, and for the husband she lost far too soon. It will resonate long after the last page.

Stringer releases her autobiography today and I encourage everyone to check it out.  It’s often that I put up stories about the mistreatment of black women in the US, so it is nice to have an occasion to celebrate some one who helps challenge those images of black women.

Update: Here is an interview I heard with her today.

Here’s the contact information via Media Matters:

Bill O’Reilly
oreilly@foxnews.com

Fox News Radio
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Email: foxnewsradio@foxnews.com

The Radio Factor
Westwood One
Bart Tessler
Sr. VP, Network News / Talk Programming
202.457.7998

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

If you missed last night’s Super Bowl, you missed a great game. I’ve gotten out of the habit of following sports since I moved to the east coast and could no longer follow my (original) home teams, but a few weeks ago, I decided to watch the NFL Conference championship between the Green Bay Packers and the New York Giants. What attracted me to that game was the weather. It was held outdoors in below zero degree temperatures, and I wanted to see how they were going to play in those inclement conditions. That game was great, and of course, I was rooting for the underdog New York Giants, not because I live in New York, but because I enjoy a comeback story.

Given the excitement of the Conference Championship game, I was looking forward to the Super Bowl. Again, I was routing for the underdog Giants. I used to like the Patriots, but there is something very unsettling about the win at any cost attitude that has driven the Patriots success over the past few years. The Patriots are cheaters (or at the very least, folks who are willing to bend the rules). They spied on other teams practices to steal signals, and the NFL punished them with the loss of a draft pick, a team fine of $250,000, and a fine of a half million dollars for the coach. The Patriots were also undefeated and favored to win by almost two touchdowns.

The game didn’t disappoint. It was exciting and culminated with a game winning, touchdown drive by the Giants in the remaining two and a half minutes. The Giants were known for coming from behind and winning on the road, and they appeared to revel in the underdog position. They also emphasized team play over star power, and the often ignored defense was the primary difference in the game. To me this win was a victory for sportsmanship.

Since I was hyped-up from the game and couldn’t sleep, my mind started wondering to of all thing–politics. I realized that the parallels between politics and sports are numerous. Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, which is the Conference Championship of Presidential politics. On the eve of the contest, I figured a I’d share a few of my thoughts about Presidential politics and sports, focusing on the contradictory values that influence the ways Americans views sports and politics.

Religion

One of the more hilarious and dangerous commonalities with politicians and athletes is that they seem to think God is on their side. They pray before the contest, and thank God and Jesus after it. How many times have you heard people say, “Without God, this would not be possible?” I have a really hard time believing the God has a favorite sports team or politician. Do people lose because God is against them?

Underdog’s

The underdog is big in sports, and while I think it’s a little less popular in politics, it is still there. There is the old saying “throw the bums out,” but at the same time, most of us love the bums we elect. For example, right now the favorable rating for Congress is very low, but when you ask people about their own Congressperson, they are much more favorable. We are also willing to tolerate much more inappropriate behavior from our own bums than from other folks bums. Nevertheless, there are times, when we do want the underdog to get ahead. If the underdog makes us feel good about ourselves, if the underdog symbolizes change, if the underdog beats incredible odds to make it to the top, or if the underdog reaffirms our belief in the inherent fairness of the system, then the underdog can become a fan favorite. The problem with this is that every side has a few skeletons in their closets, and we often overestimate the extent to which the individual politician or team is really going to change the system.

Cheating and Dirty Tricks

Some people want to win at any cost. They smear their opponents; they lie, cheat; and steal. I’m not cynical enough to believe that everybody does this, but I am realistic enough to know that it is common place. My concern is that when we become too cynical we are all to willing to accept lying, cheating, and stealing as an acceptable part of competition.

Experience vs. New Blood

As a culture, Americans love both experience and new blood. During the Super Bowl, the announcers informed us every time a rookie made a great play. We also got to hear about the deserving veterans, who finally got their shot at victory. In politics, we have a love hate relationship with veterans. The career politician is loathed, and re-elected over and over because of name recognition and the power of incumbency. New blood politicians are treated a little better than rookies in the sporting arena. Many people associate new blood with lack of corruption, which is probably naive given the nature of campaigning and fund raising.

The Comeback Story

Rather than giving the comeback story too much time–I’ll refer to the discussions about Experience vs. New Blood and Underdogs. It seems that comeback stories combine both of these two sets of values.

Social Inequality

I think most people want to believe that just about everyone has a fair shot to make it sports and politics, and our level of denial about the realities of social inequalities (in particular those of race, class, gender, religion, disability, and sexuality) is almost humorous. This gets particularly absurd with race. In sports and politics, we can’t even talk about racism without somebody trying to shut down the discussion. You didn’t have to follow the Super Bowl closely to notice that both the quarterbacks were the classic white guy quarterbacks, both the coaches were classic white guy coaches, the defensive backs for both teams were all black, the offensive lines were nearly all white, and the defensive lines were nearly all black. I’m sure somebody is going to be mad at me for pointing this out. The person, who I anger, is going to note the exceptions to these patterns, and tell me to lighten up. The same is true for politics. We’re supposed to believe that two people Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama prove that we are somehow above racism and sexism. Rather than clinging to the reality of politics where white, heterosexual, Christian, guys with money run the show, we are supposed to focus on the exceptions. What’s also funny is that if you really want to add nuance to the discussion by pointing out both Obama and Clinton are only disadvantaged on one of these forms of social inequality, many folks play dumb and can’t get it. Instead, we’re supposed to deny, deny, deny–”the system is fair and if we worked hard enough we all have the same chance. Don’t rain on our parade by telling us other wise.”

Bringing It All Together

The irony of these values is that they often conflict with each other, and many folks are content with this, partly because they are wearing blinders and partly because many of our social norms require us to hold contradictory beliefs. I’m sure my own glee over the Giants wins is full of contradictions. Now, that the underdogs are on top, and I’m going to have to find another team that makes me feel that sports are fair.

Like most people I want to believe in meritocracy, even though I know it takes a lot more than merit to make it to the top. Even though I know that competition can bring out the worst in people, I want to believe that the “good guys” win in the end. Even the division of people into “good guys” and “bad guys” reflects an unrealistic dichotomy, but one that most of us use as a lens to view society. Nothing should remind people more of this sports and politics.

From CNN’s website:

Within minutes of posting a story on CNN’s homepage called “Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in South Carolina,” readers reacted quickly and angrily. […] Many took umbrage at the story’s suggestion that black women voters face “a unique, and most unexpected dilemma” about voting their race or their gender.

CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American. […]

An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”

Another CNN reader pointed out that (since the media has written off John Edwards) white men also are, by CNN’s standards, choosing between voting their sex or voting their race. Yet, mysteriously, CNN isn’t writing stories about that.

(Curtsy: The Debate Link)

Jim Lobe points out that “strong supporter of Israel” is too often used by the press as shorthand for “extreme right-wing views on Israel.” For instance, the Washington Post referred to the founders of “Freedom’s Watch” as “strong supporters of Israel.”

I don’t doubt that the group’s donors consider themselves “strong supporters of Israel”, but what precisely is meant by that? If the phrase means supporters of the government of Israel, then it is inaccurate, because the positions of Adelson and other Watch donors on such key questions as Jerusalem, the West Bank — indeed, any territorial compromise — even Annapolis and a two-state solution, are well to the right of the current Israeli government. In fact, Adelson, like most RJC heavyweights, are strong supporters of former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party which, the last time I checked, constituted the government’s chief political opposition and is maneuvering to bring it down. So, if they oppose the current government of Israel, in what way are they “strong supporters of Israel?”

This kind of journalistic shorthand — associating neo-conservatives and their organizations like the RJC and Freedom’s Watch — with being ‘’pro-Israel’’ or “strong supporters of Israel” — is unfortunately pervasive in the mainstream media. It is not only inaccurate; it is also dangerous. It […] puts those individuals or organizations — particularly in the American Jewish community — that are very concerned about Israel but that believe that the neo-conservatives have actually undermined the country’s security in a kind of political limbo. After all, if Adelson, Freedom’s Watch, and the RJC are considered “pro-Israel” or “strong supporters of Israel,” what does that make Americans for Peace Now or the Israel Policy Forum, both of which consider themselves “pro-Israel” and “strong supporters of Israel” but also believe, contrary to hard-line neo-conservatives, that a two-state solution with major territorial compromises that include East Jerusalem are the only way to ensure Israel’s security and long-term survival?

This kind of lazy journalistic labeling has very real and very unfortunate political consequences.

I’d take issue with the “best interests at heart” phrase, which gets into motives. I do think it’s true, however, that calling right-wing policies “pro-Israel” implies that these policies are good for Israel, which is a partisan opinion that many would disagree with. The mainstream media should find a more neutral term to use.

The latest Disability Blog Carnival is up at [with]tv where Connie Kuusisto (also blogging at Planet of the Blind) has compiled a collection of links on “Disability in the Media.” Check it out! 

Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade

The story of Katie Jones has been circulating slowly on disability listservs and blogs since the December 9 article in the Chicago Tribune. FRIDA provided an early link to the story, and since then Crip Chick, Shiva, Bint, Trinity, Brownfemipower have all addressed aspects of Katie’s story and the larger issues. Comments everywhere have been… illuminating.

I haven’t written about this before now because these sorts of articles from the mainstream media — this one involving children, parental control of a child’s well-being, disability prejudice, personhood and consciousness, health care in the U.S., living with the aid of machines, “special needs” schooling, and “right-to-die” versus the right to not be coerced to die — contain so much information that is either misleading, incomplete or biased that I can’t think where to begin.

Katie Jones is a second-grader in Lake County, Illinois, who has severe cerebral palsy and whose parents have sent her to school with a DNR order (Do Not Resuscitate) prominently attached to the back of her wheelchair. Taking that much at face value, the implications for Katie, her parents, her young classmates and school employees are complex and profound.

Add to that some mind-boggling facts about both the case and the media coverage of it: The Tribune article portrays cerebral palsy as a terminal disease, and while I’m not well-versed on the very wide range of abilities and medical issues people with CP possess, none of the many people I have known personally have ever been about to drop dead. So that portrayal is dangerously and cruelly incomplete. The Tribune article doesn’t discuss the fact that Katie apparently does communicate thoughts and feelings beyond those independently interpreted by people around her. You must dig to the caption of photo 4 at a sidebar link to even learn she is capable of expressing her feelings at will. And this, at the article’s end:

Before the bus arrived, Beth Jones weaved a French braid into the school girl’s long brown hair, while Allie [Katie’s four-year-old sister] held up a feeding tube. A machine could do the job, but that makes group hugs difficult.

Besides, anything that beeps isn’t allowed in the Jones house.

“When we took her home from the hospital, where there were so many machines, we made the no beeping rule,” Beth Jones said.

The group hug part is completely untrue. I’ve had a feeding tube for two years now, and I can say with absolute certainty that there is nothing about attaching a thin plastic tube to the end of it and running that tube to a machine that makes it hard to hug or be physically close to people. It’s actually less a problem for physical intimacy than an IV in the top of the hand would be, whether that IV is connected to a hanging bag or a machine. Feeding through the tube manually is a perfectly reasonable way to use the tube since basically this just entails using a giant syringe or holding the tube up and letting gravity allow nutrients to travel gently into the stomach, but attaching falsehood and phobia to machines that do this same task contributes to the pervasive ableist belief that people are better off dead than using medical technology for the long-term.

And the “no beeping rule”? There’s the real reason for the DNR right there. Better dead than using a machine that might make some noise.

I understand machines are scary. I get that because I’ve needed to make my own adjustments to them and also because I see it in peoples’ eyes every day. And I do understand people have different points at which they might choose not to live beyond, though I’ll add that there seems to be little reflection upon or respect given to the people who live quite happily beyond those points.

I’d like to hear much much more about the Jones’ “no beeping rule.” Is it because Katie is terrified of the beeping? Does the beeping represent an identifiable point beyond which Katie’s parents don’t feel they can handle her care? Or is the beeping too public? Too intrusive? Too medical? Why is an alarm that can signal a problem that should be addressed juxtaposed against the myth that without machines Katie will die “peacefully” from choking or suffocation? Why is this type of beeping so forbidden in our technological age where cellphones and dozens of other machines chirp at each of us all day long?

It’s not really the beeping, of course. And the answer to Trinity’s question:

Now why is [info that Katie shares thoughts via a communication device] tucked away in the photoshoot and not right there by the article, which is written in a way that suggests she is not aware what is happening?

seems to be that it didn’t seem relevant to the point of the article. Katie’s consciousness and feelings were not important in an article about whether or not she lives or dies and whether or not she gets to go to school in the meantime. What her thoughts about all this might possibly be is not once pondered in the article.

Further discussion can also be found at Wrong Planet, an online forum for people with Asperger’s Syndrome.

Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade

Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) that led the protest against the NYU Child Study Center’s “Ransom Notes” ad campaign, announces:

I am pleased to inform you that this afternoon the NYU Child Study Center announced that they will be ending the “Ransom Notes” ad campaign in response to widespread public pressure from the disability community. You can read that announcement here (at the NYU Child Study Center’s website). The thousands of people with disabilities, family members, professionals and others who have written, called, e-mailed and signed our petition have been heard. Today is a historic day for the disability community. Furthermore, having spoken directly with Dr. Harold Koplewicz, Director of the NYU Child Study Center, I have obtained a commitment to pursue real dialogue in the creation of any further ad campaign depicting individuals with disabilities. We applaud the NYU Child Study Center for hearing the voice of the disability community and withdrawing the “Ransom Notes” ad campaign.

Twenty-two disability rights organizations came together to ensure the withdrawal of this advertising campaign. Our response to this campaign stretched continents, with e-mails, letters and phone calls coming from as far away as Israel, Britain and Australia. The disability community acted with a unity and decisiveness that has rarely been heard before and we are seeing the results of our strength today. Our success sends an inescapable message: if you wish to depict people with disabilities, you must consult us and seek our approval. Anything less will guarantee that we will make our voices heard. We are willing to help anyone and any group that seeks to raise awareness of disability issues, but those efforts must be done with us, not against us. This is a victory for inclusion, for respect and for the strength and unity of people with disabilities across the world. It is that message that has carried the day in our successful response to this campaign. Furthermore, we intend to build on this progress, not only by continuing a dialogue with the NYU Child Study Center and using this momentum to ensure self-advocate representation at other institutions as well, but also by building on the broad and powerful alliance that secured the withdrawal of these ads in the first place. We are strongest when we stand together, as a community, as a culture and as a people.

Thank you to all of you who have made this victory possible. Remember: “Nothing About Us, Without Us!”

It didn’t look promising at first. This past weekend the images of the ads at the Child Study Center’s website were briefly taken down, but they were back up when the New York Times Sunday coverage of the ads quoted Koplewicz as saying the Center was determined to “stick with it and ride out the storm” and even expand the campaign to four other cities soon.

Kristina Chew, PhD., who blogs at Autism Vox and was also quoted in the NYT article, has been providing relentless commentary, coverage and linkage to dozens of blogs writing about the ads. To follow those posts chronologically go here, here, here, here, here and here.

Or check out Furious Seasons where Philip Dawdy makes some interesting connections in noting that Koplewicz co-authored a study of Paxil for the pharmaceutical company Glaxo SmithKline that apparently exaggerated benefits and downplayed adverse effects in treating adolescent depression. Koplewicz is one of dozens of co-authors of that study, but Dawdy wrote earlier this year:

“Some very smart people have taken on many of the issues around Study 329 and Paxil/Seroxat and, based upon the evidence, I’d have to say that it’s fair to assert that none of us in the patient world should trust anyone who had a hand in the study (unless they want to suddenly recant the work) on absolutely anything they say about mental illness. At a minimum, we should be wildly skeptical of any claims they make.”

Dawdy hasn’t been the only one to speculate about what corporate interests might have connections to the Ransom Notes ad campaign. Many commenters to the NYT article wondered about possible pharmaceutical backing for the ads, though I’ve seen absolutely no direct evidence of this. It seems to have been yet another case of do-gooders offering a message that didn’t take into account the experiences and feelings of those they set out to help.

In the Center’s announcement of the end of the ad campaign, Koplewicz writes:

Though we meant well, we’ve come to realize that we unintentionally hurt and offended some people. We’ve read all the emails, both pro and con, listened to phone calls, and have spoken with many parents who are working day and night to get their children the help they need. We have decided to conclude this phase of our campaign today because the debate over the ads is taking away from the pressing day-to-day work we need to do to help children and their families. They are and remain our first concern.

Our goal was to start a national dialogue. Now that we have the public’s attention, we need your help. We would like to move forward and harness the energy that this campaign has generated to work together so that we do not lose one more day in the lives of these children. We hope you will partner with us to bring the issues surrounding child and adolescent mental health to the top of America’s agenda. Work with us as we fight to give children and their families equal access to health insurance, remove the stigma that the term “psychiatric disorder” so clearly still elicits, and, most importantly, support the drive to make research and science-based treatment a national priority.

We invite all of you to continue this conversation online at a “town hall” meeting that we will hold early next year as we plan the next phase of our national public awareness campaign on child mental health. Look for details on our web site www.AboutOurKids.org.

Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade

We have your son.We are destroying his ability for social
interaction and driving him into a life of complete isolation. It’s up to
you now…Asperger’s Syndrome

The NYU Child Study Center has a new public education campaign designed to create awareness of psychiatric disorders. Ads appearing in magazines and on NYC billboards and kiosks are mock ransom notes signed by specific psychiatric disorders: ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome, autism, bulimia, depression and OCD. Here’s the ad for bulimia (Description: Cut and paste words from magazine text form a ransom note: “We have your daughter. We are forcing her to throw up after every meal she eats. It’s only going to get worse. –Bulimia” Below the note the ad says, “Don’t let a psychiatric disorder take your child” and gives info for the NYU Child Study Center.):

Text for the other ads reads:

We have your son. We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning…Autism.

We are in possession of your son. We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay…ADHD

We have taken your son. We have imprisoned him in a maze of darkness with no hope of ever getting out. Do nothing and see what happens…Depression

We have your daughter. We are making her wash her hands until they are raw, everyday. This is only the beginning…OCD

The NYU Child Study Center, celebrating its tenth year and the relaunch of its public information website AboutOurKids.org, says:

The idea behind the “Ransom Notes” is that, all too often, untreated psychiatric disorders are holding our children hostage. These disorders rob children of the ability to learn, make and keep friends and enjoy life.

“Ransom Notes” may be shocking to some, but so are the statistics: suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24, and serious emotional problems affect one out of 10 young people, most of whom do not get help. The strong response to this campaign is evidence that our approach is working. We understand the challenges faced by individuals with these disorders and their families. We hope to both generate a national dialogue that will end the stigma surrounding childhood psychiatric disorders and advance the science, giving children the help they need and deserve. We want this campaign to be a wake up call. Please join the dialogue.

And people are joining the dialogue. The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) has gathered 14 other disability rights organizations and issued a joint letter (.pdf file) calling for withdrawal of the ad campaign. (There’s also a petition for anyone to sign in support of the ASAN joint letter and appeal.) In part, the letter reads:

While the “Ransom Notes” campaign was no doubt a well-intentioned effort to increase awareness and thus support for the disabilities it describes, the means through which it attempts this have the opposite effect. When a child with ADHD is described as “a detriment to himself and those around him,” it hurts the efforts of individuals, parents and families to ensure inclusion and equal access throughout society for people with disabilities. When individuals with diagnoses of autism and Asperger’s Syndrome are told that their capacities for social interaction and independent living are completely destroyed, it hurts their efforts for respect, inclusion, and necessary supports by spreading misleading and inaccurate information about these neurologies. While it is true that there are many difficulties associated with the disabilities you describe, individuals with those diagnostic categories do succeed – not necessarily by becoming indistinguishable from their non-disabled peers – but by finding ways to maximize their unique abilities and potential on their own terms.

Individuals with disabilities are not replacements for normal children that are stolen away by the disability in question. They are whole people, deserving of the same rights, respect, and dignity afforded their peers. Too often, the idea that children with disabilities are less than human lies at the heart of horrific crimes committed against them.

The letter also notes that the ad campaign supports the idea that people with these psychiatric disorders — note that autism and Asperger’s Syndrome are labeled psychiatric disorders here — may be dangerous to others around them.

Does anyone else’s mind jump to Columbine-type scenarios when they see “children” and “hostage” linked? Mine did.

h/t to Stephen Drake at Not Dead Yet

Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade

A Chinese woman by the name of Wang Fang declined a disability pension despite being born with feet that face backwards. This is news in Britain, if only, perhaps, so the intriguing pictures of the 27-year-old waitress and resident of Chongqing could be presented for the public to view.

Apparently, Wang’s visibly different feet automatically qualify her for a disability pension in China, but she’s refused both the “disabled” identity and the cash.

“I can run faster than most of my friends and have a regular job as a waitress in the family restaurant,” she says. “There is no reason to class me as disabled. I’m like everyone else - except of course that I put my shoes on backwards.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Thanks to Bean for pointing out this clip to me.

1) Good on Dennis for calling the inane question about his wife’s pierced tongue “trivializing.”

2) I’ll probably be voting for Kucinich in the primary. There’s no reason to vote the lesser evil in a primary.

3) The interviewer (who quickly returned to asking about the tongue piercing, alas) said that if Dennis is elected, Elizabeth will be the youngest first lady ever (also, ice capades in Hell!). Actually, she’ll be about a decade older than the youngest one was.

To close the most recent Democratic candidates’ debate, a female student in the audience asked Hilary Clinton which she prefers, diamonds or pearls (Clinton laughed and said “both”). Watching the debate, I wondered what sort of person would ask a question that asinine.¹

As it turns out, the answer is: an ordinary, serious person, who had wanted to ask a real question but was told not to by CNN’s decision-makers.

A former illegal immigrant whose parents clean and do laundry for Las Vegas hotels, she attends a UNLV honors program on scholarship and work-study programs. Two summers ago, she interned for Senator Harry Reid; last summer, she won a fellowship in public policy at Princeton. She wants to be an immigration lawyer when she’s older.[…]

Last week, CNN had contacted Ms. Parra-Sandoval, a political science student at University of Las Vegas-Nevada, through a professor, and asked her to submit a question. She wrote one about health care for children. CNN rejected it, calling it too similar to another question that would be asked. (No such question was.) So she sent another, about Iraq. That was rejected too. On Wednesday, a CNN producer asked her for two final questions, one substantive and one light. Ms. Parra-Sandoval sent one about Yucca Mountain, the Nevada site under consideration as a storage facility for radioactive waste. With the deadline approaching, she stared at her computer screen. Noticing the pearl-pattern background on her MySpace page, she dashed off the jewelry one.

CNN asked her to come to the debate with both questions memorized. Two hours in, a producer whispered that she should ask the second one.

CNN, of course, has defended the question by pointing out that Parra-Sandoval wrote it herself, as if CNN had nothing to do with it. Oy.

1. I think the “boxers or briefs” question is asinine, too. (back)

Assuming that Obama or Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, that is. (Personally, I hope Dodd wins, but of Obama or Clinton I’d prefer Obama.)

From The Debate Link:

There is a very predictable media narrative that will form if two members of politically underrepresented groups appear on the Democratic ticket. One person is ground-breaking and history-making. Two people, by contrast, is an “affirmative action” choice and proof the Democrats are in thrall to “interest groups.” If Obama picks a woman, it will undoubtedly be cast as “appeasing” women’s groups who were ready to see Clinton break the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton picks a Black running mate, same thing, except replace NOW with the NAACP. This is what Derrick Bell calls the unspoken limit on affirmative action. Even if at first the diversity is applauded, at some point folks will start getting uncomfortable with too many women or people of color. A presidential ticket that doesn’t include a White male is virtually inconceivable, and it’s equally inconceivable that the media won’t make heavy note of that fact in the unlikely instance it comes into being.

Editor’s Note: I’m absolutely not going to let this thread turn into a discussion of how whites really aren’t racist, and people of color are really the problem. So if you want to leave a whiny comment about Al Sharpton or illegal immigrants or any other distraction, I’ll delete it.

I want to pull several seemingly unrelated posts together to make a point about contemporary racism. Yesterday, I read this post over at Racialicious. Carmen closes the post with the following sentences about Don Imus and Michael Richards:

The Richards incident started with the racist ravings of a white man, complete with references to lynching, but ended up as a public discussion of why black people keep using the n-word towards each other. The Imus incident started with the racist and misogynist remarks of a white man, but ended up as a public referendum on misogyny in hip hop.

It’s fascinating to me that all roads seem to lead back to discussions of how black people are supposedly oppressing themselves.

I am struck by how common this phenomenon is. The basic pattern that these discussion follow is:

1. White person makes incredibly racist statements.
2. Some people express outrage over those statements; others seek to downplay the statements.
3. Those who want to downplay the statements are able to win the “hearts and minds” of the vast majority of whites, who want operate by the anything but racism philosophy.
4. The conversation the turns to how it really isn’t racist or wasn’t intention of the person. Since this allows people to think it is not that person’s fault, they then proceed to the last step.
5. Blaming the real victims of racism.

This leads to sentiments like notion Don Imus called women nappy headed hos because of Hip Hop. Once we reach the 5th step the conversation is almost beyond repair. Whites are reframed as victims people of color (in particular blacks) are framed as the real source of the problem, and then the debate has totally shifted.

Professor Black Woman’s post here gives several examples of this phenomenon. In particular, she focuses on how Tucker Carlson discussed the Jena 6 case by discussing Carlson’s reframing:

In the “new” face of racism, two things have to happen: 1. acknowledge that the certain aspects of any racist incident are extreme (not unfair, extreme) or that the black community is acceptable to you & 2. then posit a racist overlaying narrative that essential reframes the discussion around the unfair and extreme behavior perceived to be experienced by white people.

After reading those Carmen’s and Professor Black Woman’s posts, I was reminded of the discussion we had here and at Alas about the Don Imus controversy. I put up very few posts about the Don Imus case, but the discussion generated in those posts two posts reveals how these contemporary racist tactics work.

Let me start by going through the discussion on Rachel’s Tavern. At Rachel’s Tavern, most of the people who commented on the Imus post are black, not everybody (but most). Dcase (who I really like; I promise) was the first person to bring Hip Hop into the discussion, which lead to a focus on Blacks not Imus. He said,

Moreover, there is some hypocrisy inherent here in that many of those who are up in arms about Imus referring to them as such but use such language everyday in their own speech and bob their heads to it from their music. This especially true among blacks: the hateful stuff that they commonly direct to each other is often worse than anything a racist could think up.

This statement unleashed criticism from most of the subsequent posters, many of whom pointed out the logical flaw that it is unfair to assume that the people who were upset were necessarily the same people who condone the use of sexist and racist language in Hip Hop. (It’s worth reading the whole thread.) I think Gandolf Mantooth’s post summarized it well:

I don’t understand the “so what blacks do it, too” defense. So, Dcase, if Imus had used the N-word on air, would you still have the same opinion? Moreover, I don’t think that if say, Chris Rock (since he seems to be one of the whipping boys of the moment) had called the Rutgers team the same thing on some chat show that there would not have been similar outrage. Perhaps some non-African Americans might have sat on the sidelines and watched, however there would have been a problem, and for him, it would have started at home.

What is even MORE baffling is how many people are trying to pull rap music into the discussion (not only coming from the White right, but from Black talk radio). It seems that lately, any time a White guy mouths of we gotta talk about hip hop.

What’s interesting to me about this is the underlying tone about how we approach women athletes in the public sphere

I replied:

Which is one reason why many reasonable and non-sexist black men don’t say that bullshit. These stupid pundits think Too Short and Two Live Crew represent that typical black men.

Yeah, we always have to bring up hip hop and ignorant black people as an excuse for whites’ racism.

Angry Independent joined in the Hip Hop criticism later in the discussion by asking me:

Surely you aren’t trying to make excuses for the Rap Community?

Why shouldn’t they be held to the same standard for doing far more damage than Don Imus on a daily basis?

This caravan of criticism & accountability shouldn’t stop with Don Imus… We should drive this thing all the way to the doorstep of Hip Hop, urban radio, the record executives, the rappers, BET, and all the rest.

To which I responded:

No I’m not excusing it, but I do think it is not relevant to Imus. Just because some sexist black men degrade black women by calling them hos doesn’t mean it’s Ok for white men to do it.
This is the classic condemn the condemners strategy. It’s like the guy caught on tape committing a crime, and the first thing he says is “Other people stold too.” But you’re the one on tape, you’re the one everybody caught. You’re the one on trial.

Sexist hip hop artists and sexist black men can get their trial on another day, but it is not relevant now.

Then Angry Independent said:

Whoa!!!
I think you might have misunderstood me. I am completely against what Imus did… just to make that clear. And I AM NOT saying that Imus should be allowed to get away with it because rappers do it.
I am basically saying almost the opposite…. I am saying that ALL should be condemned…and that the African American community has to look within at this same kind of behavior, which (in the Black Community) is far more damaging. Yet, I don’t see Sharpton and Jesse & others working as vigorously or with the same determination to organize boycotts, or to get people fired at these radio stations, record companies, at rap concerts, against BET, etc.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on the issue of rap not being relevent to the Imus situation. IT IS VERY relevent. The two cannot and must not be separated. One has facilitated the other. One has desensitized the society to such a degree that someone like Imus thought that this would be O.k. or that it would blow over.

The two issues are inseparable.

Then I responded:

I don’t think you are saying this personally, but I think the outcome of always bringing up sexist comments from black men or attacking the character of blacks who note these racist comment allows white racists to feel better.

On the issue of blaming hip hop…..I feel sexism and the “whore” image of black women existed way before hip hop. Sexist rappers may have helped it along, and they should be held accountable, but they didn’t create the problem anymore than preachers, politicans, and other sexist men.

Do you think Imus was out listening to hip hop, and it influenced him? I don’t think so. White men have stereotyped black women as “hos” going back a long way…back to slavery. They used this as a justification for rape and exploitation. This started way before hip hop.

Now for the record, I do think Hip Hop deserves criticism, and I do think both Angry Independent and dcase mean well. I’ve read enough comments of theirs to know that, but the reason others folks and I were so frustrated at that line of reasoning is that it is used by many in politics, mass media, and academia to avoid discussing white racism. I agree that there is a time and a place for Black Americans, like dcase, Angry Independent or any of the other folks participating in that thread, to talk about Blacks who degrade other Blacks, but that discussion needs to happen not because a white guy like Imus degrades Blacks.

The thread at Alas was even worse. Since there is no way I can actually recreate the 216 comments, I’ll just summarize what happened. When one commenter focused only on the sexist aspect of the comments, I reminded her that “It also matters that the women were black.” To which Brandon Berg responded,

It’s not at all clear that it does, given that he then went on to say, “the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute,” and they’re black, too (as far as I can tell—the video clip isn’t very clear). His choice of whom to insult and whom to compliment was based on his perception of their attractiveness, not their race.

I responded to Brandon, by saying it was obvious that he would not have called a white woman nappy headed. I also noted that references Black women as “hos” were much more common than references to white women as hos, to which Brandon responded:

He called them hoes because they had tattoos. The perception of an association between tattoos and promiscuity and/or general trashiness is not something that’s limited to black women. For example, lower-back tattoos on white women are called “tramp stamps.” It wouldn’t strike me at all as unusual if a man were to call a group of white women with visible tattoos “hoes.”

I’m not sure what you mean about Google. “White hoes” gets slightly more googits than “black hoes,” and likewise “hos”. Are you talking about quantity or quality?

The only other time I’ve ever heard the phrase “nappy-head” was back in high school, when a Mexican boy called a Mexican girl with straight hair a nappy-head. I realize that one meaning of nappy is the texture of a black person’s hair, but it also means icky or unappealing, and is used as a generic insult. You can argue that the second meaning has racist origins in that it was derived from the first, but words tend to get divorced from their origins, and people use them without understanding where they came from.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that it wasn’t a bad thing to say. I’m just saying that I’m not sure race factored into it much if at all. Racism is one of the few things that’s more or less universally regarded as unacceptable in American culture, so as a rule non-nuts don’t say things which are clearly racist. Which is why most of the examples of racist comments that you post are ambiguous.

For the record, Brandon never met a case of racism that he actually thought was racism. This was part of an on-going tit-for-tat between he and I, in which I would put up a post about an event or practice that I felt was racist, and he would come in an say it wasn’t racism.

On the upside, there were several people challenging Brandon, but as the thread went along racism apologists started to outnumber (or it was at least equal) the people saying Imus’s comment was not racist. Then at some point the discussion ended up moving away from the original content, and the racism apologists helped move us to a discussion of what is racist and who is racist. They wanted to define racism so narrowly that almost nothing is defined as racist. Robert made this claim:

Saying so-and-so is a racist, in my view, is saying that they’re of a piece with the night riders who terrorized blacks, raping and killing to buttress an awful system of oppression and outright tyranny. That’s one hell of a serious charge to lay on somebody, so I’m reluctant to do it unless the evidence is unequivocal. Racism is evil, and racists are evil. I hate to put someone in the “evil” category if I don’t have to.

To which I responded (you can click on this link for the full comment):

To Robert and everyone else,
The problem here is the very simplistic thinking. White racism runs the gamit from very virulent violence that can result in bodily injury to more subtle things like not feeling comfortable in a room where there are people of color or not listening when people of color give their points of view.

When we reserve the term racism for only the most violent acts, we ignore the cumulative affects of those more subtle forms of racism, which add up over time.

(To Robert) Take your early reaction to Angel H. She was clearly ticked off, and even though I don’t agree with her in theory, she was trying very hard to be heard. She was saying as a black woman I find this offensive, and then what happened? Rather than making any attempt to confirm her feelings or acknowledge why she was hurt and frustrated, you came in with your theory. In doing so, you dismissed her frustration, your dismissed her view, you dismissed her anger, and you dismissed her as a black woman. Because you were so fixated on being right and creating a good theory, but you did really seem to connect with her everyday experience. (I saw the same thing with pheeno on a thread about a month ago.)…..

But letting go of racism and privilege is so very hard for most white people. So rather than being able to serious engage Angel and acknowledge her feelings we have to go back to our precious worldviews. We just can’t let the focus be on the black women who were insulted by such language. No instead we have to insult black male leaders and go over what we think are their shortcomings, talk about really nice white guys, who help kids with cancer. Then we start to talk about the great freedom of speech principle, and on and on and on……Ok, white folks and men. It’s not all about us and our views all the time. Just take a minute to put yourself in someone elses shoes.

What was also disturbing about that thread was that all of the black women, especially Angel H. and Ann, were dismissed or ignored as if their perspectives weren’t important, which was incredibly insulting since the racist and sexist comments by Imus were directly at Black women.

That Alas thread was one of the most exasperating and annoying exercises in contemporary racist rhetoric I have ever seen. A few posters wanted to talk about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (because every time white guys screw up we have to talk about both of them); another one wanted claim that there are basic genetic differences between whites and blacks; Michael wanted to talk about how black women are doing great because Oprah Winfrey is doing well, and an idiot called GET OVER IT admonished those of us complaining about Imus’s comments to:

FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT. ALMOST ALL OF YOU COMPLAINERS OUT THERE ARE GUILTY OF DOING THE SAME THING ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. IF THIS WAS EDDIE MURPHY OR SOME OTHER BLACK PERSON THAT SAID THIS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVEN SAID ANYTHING.

It got so bad that Ampersand, banned 5 different people from posting on the thread, and we had a really long discussion both on and off the site about how we were going to change the comment policy.

Here’s what frustrates me: we need to talk about white people’s role in racism. We need to have a discussion about white racism that is not derailed. After all, Whites hold the vast majority of power in the US (and in the global political and economic institutions), and we have the most influence over racism. We need to stop pretending that Hip Hop, or Black criminals, or anyone who acknowledges racism is the problem. The analogy I have used for the past 10-15 years is the analogy of alcoholism. One of the basic tenets Alcoholics Anonymous is that a person has to acknowledge his or her alcoholism before he or she can get better. Well the same is true for white racism. No matter what people of color are doing. We whites don’t need to make an excuse, saying when Black people do better then we will stop being racist. First, it unfair to make glaring generalizations about how bad black people are based on the behavior of a select few blacks, and second, we don’t have to wait for every black person (Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans, too) to be perfect before we stop being racist. If we want to stop racism, we have to acknowledge that the problem is ours. We need to have a conversation about ourselves where racism is at the forefront. We need to stop the distraction tactics, stop the victim mentality, stop the whining, and focus on what we can do better.

This pattern of behavior needs to stop. Just like alcoholism, white racism doesn’t need enablers, and it doesn’t need excuses. For racism to stop we need whites to acknowledge the problem and then to start working on it.

Today, I’m going to post a trifecta of neat stuff in three short entries, staggered through the afternoon and evening.

The first thing is an entry about sex & sex work in science fiction, which is smart and interesting, but which is totally eclipsed by the cleverness of this quote/proposal. Thene writes on Aaru Tuesday,

I would like to propose a measure called The Frank Miller Test. It will test how much male sci-fi writers are obsessed with whores; if the proportion of female sex workers to neutrally presented female people in his story is above 1:1, he fails.

Hear, hear.

*

But it would be unfair not to give you a taste of the smart, interesting entry, too. Thene’s entry looks at sex & sex work in science fiction and fantasy. “There’s a lot of supposedly ’speculative’ fictions where it’s still 1958,” she says.

Summarizing one story that poses an SFnal frontier, she writes, “It’s 1958 again. The men have a quest, and the women are the questers’ prostitutes. (Anonymous homosexual intercourse is suggested as the cash-free alternative). There’s also, of course, this narrative about how ‘vices’ of all kinds are brought by the evil capitalist enterprise to the virgin wilderness.”

She quotes the story to illustrate her point:

There are several like her, some boys but mostly young women, utterly charged by the arrival of these tough roustabouts and the breathing pistons of the trains. Their families lament while they let their flocks run, or sell them for meat to railroaders for scrimshawed trinkets from the tool-rooms. The goatkeep young men join the grading teams and fill the rivers. The young women find other outlets. […] There is bad blood among the camp followers. The whores who have dutifully followed these men, splitting from the perpetual train to work with these mountain diggers, are affronted by their new rural rivals, these farmgirls who expect no pay. Some of the workers themselves are threatened by these newly voracious young women who do not sell sex or even give sex but take it. They know no rules. They have yet to learn taboos… [emphasis hers]

And her smart analysis: “Part of me adores that bolded line, and the energy of the passage in general. The other part is saying waitacottonpickingminute, you’re appropriating vaginas to demonstrate your philosophy of technology? You’re using the gender-neutral word ‘worker’ to mean ‘man who pays for sex’? You’re drawing lines between ‘untamed’ rural amazons and prostitutes who are Slaves Of The Patriarchal-Capital-Whatsit? Prostitutes who (as the story goes) ‘corrupt’ those women through violence, enforce their taboos and turn them, vampire-like, into prostitutes themselves? The shit?”

Read the whole thing.

(Hat tip: Ide Cyan at Whileaway)

* * *

UPDATE: Check out this “Shortpacked” cartoon, which Myca pointed out in comments.

From Ezra:

The undisputed champion of the Arab terrorist role is Sayed Badreya. The burly, bearded Egyptian-born actor has played an array of menacing characters in a 20-year Hollywood career. He’ll appear with Robert Downey Jr. in next year’s “Iron Man” as an Arab arms dealer who kidnaps the hero. In 2003, he and Issawi made a short film called “T for Terrorist” in which an Arab actor, frustrated with endless terrorist roles, takes over a movie set at gunpoint.

Badreya recalls when he first arrived in Hollywood in 1986. “I couldn’t work. I was too handsome,” he laughs. “So I put on some weight and grew a beard, and suddenly I was working every day and playing the angry Arab.”

If Revenge of the Nerds is on TV, I often watch it. Not the whole thing, but a little section, here and there. It was a movie that I loved as a kid. But it was crap back then (despite some decent performances, including John Goodman as the mean coach), and it’s aged badly.

Revenge of the Nerds is vilely sexist; forget that none of the female nerds get much screen time or personality. The hero nerds are peeping toms who distribute nude photos of the cheerleaders to the general public without consent. One of the protagonists rapes a cheerleader by disguising himself as her boyfriend (the movie makes it clear that she never would have consented to kiss him, let alone fuck him, had she known his real identity).¹

The one black nerd isn’t depicted in a racist fashion; instead, they made him gay so he could be depicted in a homophobic fashion.² The one Asian nerd is nothing but a pile of racist anti-Asian cliches.

So, anyway. Vile movie. It got to me anyway, when I was a kid, because its message — that degrading treatment of nerds is wrong, does matter, and that bullies should be punished — was a message I wanted to hear.

On to Hairspray. The new version, not the John Waters version. Fun movie, good music, good performances. Much better than Revenge of the Nerds.

I saw it with my sister and niece and nephew. I liked it. It’s message, which is that degrading treatment of fat people is wrong and does matter, and that racist anti-fat snobs should be punished — is one I approve of. Picky person that I am, I still had complaints. There were plenty of cruel anti-fat jokes for the audience to enjoy; virtually all of these jokes were aimed at a fat character played by John Travolta wearing a fat suit.³

And then there was the peculiar strategy employed in both movies. Both movies focused on a discriminated-against group — nerds in one case, fat people in another — whose complaints about discrimination are not usually seen as legitimate or important. So how did the screenwriters decide to make these causes seem legitimate? By having nerd rights and fat rights (respectively) piggyback onto black civil rights.

In Revenge of the Nerds, the nerds join a (previously) all-black national fraternity; the head of the fraternity organization becomes sympathetic to the nerds when he witnesses anti-nerd discrimination (the jocks drive pigs through the nerd’s house). The subtext is that Black people are our experts on discrimination, so if a Black character recognizes something as discrimination — even if the incident has nothing to do with race — the presumably mostly White audience should accept that it’s discrimination, too. (In the end, the nerds defeat John Goodman and the jocks because the nerds’ Scary Black Frat Friends come and physically protect the nerds, intimidating the white jocks.)

In Hairspray, which is set in the 60s, the main character learns to fight for fat rights by joining the fight for civil rights for Blacks⁴. The idea is that the fight for racial equality is, inherently, a fight for the dignity of all people, including fat people. This is much more agreeable than how Revenge of the Nerds uses Black people, but I still find it interesting that both movies try to validate the idea that the rights of nerds/fat people matter by using the “see! Black characters agree!” strategy. It’s a symptom, I think, of how The Struggle For Black Civil Rights is the iconic struggle for rights in US culture, and so everything must be analogized to racial discrimination in order to be understood as discrimination at all, at least in pop culture.

It’s unfortunate, I think, both because it puts an unfair burden on Black history to have it be treated as the Iconic Form Of Civil Rights Struggles, and because it tends to make it hard to conceptualize the struggles of other oppressed groups where they don’t resemble the struggles of American Blacks.

1. The movie tries to make this okay by having the cheerleader fall in love with her rapist once he unmasks himself, because he was that great at sex. No, really, that’s what’s in the movie. I’m not making this up. (back)
2. It’s possible to do a flaming gay male character and still do the character intelligently and with respect in a comedy. But that ain’t what happened in Revenge of the Nerds. (back)
3. I call this strategy “The Absent Fatso“; having a fake fatso, who the audiences know isn’t really fat, lets the audience and producers enjoy cruel jokes without having to confront the cruelty. (back)
4. Which reminds me a bit of how many of the second-wave feminists learned to be activists in the 1960s civil rights movement before becoming feminists. (back)

I received an email from a reader about a round table on the Tavis Smiley Show. Apparently, Tavis will have a panel discussing Thomas’s book and his appearance on 60 Minutes. Panelists are Marc Morial, President and CEO of The National Urban League, Princeton Professor Cornel West, and Columbia University President, Farah Jasmine Griffin. If you are in New York, the Tavis Smiley Show airs at 12 midnight on PBS.  If you are in another market, I’m not sure of the time, but you can check you local PBS station.
Did anyone else see the 60 Minutes interview with Thomas?   I thought he came off as really bitter.  He kept using the anchor’s name in a pejorative way.  It was very uncomfortable from my vantage point.  For those interested in abortion and sexual harassment issues, Thomas made the claim that the controversy surrounding his appointment was really about abortion.  The panel on the Tavis Smiley Show will discuss this issue in some depth.