Politics of Indirect Embarrassment

Thesis: Only members of oppressed, dispossessed, disenfranchised, and otherwise Other groups feel second-hand embarrassment.  That is, when one of their members does something that meets the negative stereotypes of the dominant culture, there is a sense of embarrassment among others in the group that are fighting the negative stereotype.

I see myself as a member of several groups, most of which are Othered in one way or another.  Punks, Communists, Latinos (sorta), Men (I'll make the argument more fully below), I see myself in solidarity with the working classes, although I wouldn't call myself a member, I'm definitely bourgeoisie in terms of social and economic class, I'm also pretty definitely White.

I feel embarrassment for others when: punks fulfill the worst stereotypes of obnoxious, selfish, drugged up and stupid.  Communists are either paranoid, stupid or "moon bats".  Latinos are lazy and smoke a lot of dope.  Working people are ignorant, conservative, and hawkish.

With men, since most of my friends/liberal East Coast American social group have cultural standards that demean macho men, macho men are definitely Othered in my social context as men.  Sincerely sexist commentary is embarrassing to me.

As far as bourgeois people and White people acting according to their worst negative stereotypes, it doesn't embarrass me, as much as make me angry (since their worst negative stereotypes are connected to their abuse of power).  Since acting stupid is not a part of the stereotype of the White bourgeoisie (since they have power), it isn't something that causes second-hand embarrassment.

Shame, Where art thou?

Like many a conservative, I blame a lot of our problems on the 60s.  Only difference is, the conservatives think the 60s radicals screwed things up by bringing change.  My take is that they screwed things up by changing the wrong things.  Certainly, some of those changes were necessary - the Civil Rights movement being the most obvious.  But, the CRM was important in as much as it was a class war - a war of oppressed, poor Black folk against the wealthy powers that were.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of the 60s were culture wars, and as such, were wars for individual freedom, not collective freedom.  And, as this got translated to the bourgeois hipster youth, and the New Left, any real understanding of the American working class was lost.  In its place, the way for bourgeoisie youth to strike out against the bourgeoisie culture of their parents was by essentially doing away with the cultural restrictions that were in place - that is, to be shameless.  Being "yourself," whatever the hell that means, became the new cultural standard.  In short, fuck society, the individual is more important - pretty much the same hegemonic cultural values and ideology, but now stripped bare of any social constraints.

As a result, shame, a powerful, and important aspect of cultural, and therefore, community stability, has been lost on all levels.  The individual and shamelessness is the true American hegemony.  The following is from a footnote in James C. Scott's Weapons of the Weak:

Erving Goffman has captured the strange power that those without shame can exercise.  "Too little perceptiveness, too little savoir-faire, too little pride and considerateness, and the person ceases to be someone who can be trusted to take a hint about himself or give a hint that will save others embarrassment. . . . Such a person comes to be a real threat to society; there is nothing much that can be done with him, and often he gets his way."

What Torture Debate?

Dear NPR,

I heard an interview with your ombudsperson, Alicia Shepard, on the radio program, On the Media.  It was the kind of hard hitting interview I wish there was more of in the American press.  I think it says something about you that 1) it was so challenging, maybe even hostile.  Probably the most of any story in any medium from any source (okay, this might be a little hyperbolic) of the year (this is a good thing) but also 2) it was challenging to . . . yourself, NPR.  How messed up is it that you are so critical of yourself and not so critical of, say, Dick Cheney?

The interview came down to whether or not NPR should call water-boarding torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques".  Your ombudsperson claimed that NPR should "present the facts and let the listeners decide."  But in trying to have some level of objectivity you are allowing Cheney, et al. to perpetuate a rhetorical strategy that uses untruths as political perspective.  It's like the climate change debate - they yelled and screamed and found "scientists" willing to compromise their integrity, and they manufactured a debate.

Actually, I think this is ten times more cut and dried.  This is really a case of apples and oranges.  Or really, oranges.  There are those of us who want to call torture, torture; and oranges, oranges.  There are those of us who prefer to call torture, "enhanced interrogation techniques"; and prefer to call oranges, apples.  And then there is your ombudsperson who seems to prefer that NPR describe the fruit - it's orange, it's got a thick, pithy peel, it's got a sweet fruit that many people ingest as juice in the morning - and let the listeners figure out that it is an orange.  This seems overly convoluted since there is a perfectly good word that we can use to describe what happened - it's torture.

I hope that NPR thinks about their journalistic standards in a way that is more complex.  Coming down on the side of Truth is never a political decision, although it may have political repercussions.   Using euphemism or avoiding words merely because they are made politically controversial by one party or another is not objectivity, or fairness, but is rather a disservice to your listeners and to your greater mission, which is to provide information and understanding of the world around us.  In other words, don't worry about being so damn politically correct, call things what they are, and hit the politicians as hard as you hit yourself.

Sincerely,

DJO

Latest Read: Black Hawk Down

Bowden, Mark.  Black Hawk Down.  New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1999.

Generally, I'm not a huge fan of this sort of war story - it's all on the ground action, profiles of the soldiers involved, blood, guts, gore and action.  The problem is usually that there isn't enough analysis and context to put it all in perspective.  Bowden, on the other hand, really makes it work - most of his book is still bloody and gutsy enough to be the basis of both a Hollywood movie and a 1st person shooter video game; but it's also got enough macro analysis to make it worth reading from a foreign policy perspective.

Black Hawk Down is the story of Somalia during the Clinton years.  That's the bigger context anyway, really it's about two days or so in Mogadishu when a US Army Delta force and Ranger operation went really, really wrong.  The book is meticulously researched; while most of it is from the perspective of the US forces, there are also some Somali perspectives included - this helps create that bigger picture, too.

The action itself is lucidly written - the gore is particularly gory.  At one point I thought I wouldn't be able to finish due to the queasiness that was induced by a particularly bloody scene: One of the US soldiers was wounded in the leg and his femoral artery (or whatever the major one is) is severed.  The medic on hand (who was a good friend of the soldier) had to reach into the soldier's wound to try to grab the artery and close it off and he can't find it, so he has to basically dig up into the dude's body looking for it and eventually makes another incision to make another fruitless search.  It was really disturbing.

Anyways, the book presents the soldiers honorably, but also shows their problems - over confidence, naivité, too much information at times, too little information at times, and missteps, sometimes literally.  The Somalis are presented mostly from the US soldiers perspective, so it tends to be somewhat less than charitable, but in the end certain positive characteristics are evident - courage, resilience, street-smarts and, perhaps above all, inventiveness.  The US figured that the Black Hawk helicopters would be the source of overwhelming force, but the Somalis figured out how to counterattack and were able to bring down 2 of them and seriously damage another.

The book raises issues about US foreign policy - the lesson isn't so much that the US shouldn't have gotten involved in Somalia, but rather the nature of US involvement is questioned.  The policy that led to the disaster was an attempt to take out the most powerful warlord - the one that most Somali's supported.  The US has had a history of pushing our agenda, regardless of political realities in other nations.  This simply doesn't work.  Unfortunately, the lesson seems to have been lost in two terrible ways - on the one hand, the US does not get involved in conflicts it should (see Rwanda, or Darfur) to prevent humanitarian crises, but does get involved in conflicts to impose our imperium (see Iraq).  One day, hopefully, we'll learn. 

Does the Medium Matter?

I don't have a television.  It's not that I don't like television, the problem is that really, I like it too much.  In fact, I find it fairly addicting.  Put me in a room with a television and I am drawn to it, and have a hard time carrying on conversation, or even, really, noticing what's around me.

What I've noticed lately about news, is that it definitely seems to be of the "more is more" school - or the belief seems to be "more information" makes you more informed.  With the Presidential debates last fall, they had up to the minute "scores" from a whole bunch of pundits flashing on the screen as the debates were happening.  You could tell who was "winning" in real time (is the point of the debate really about winning and losing?  Or is it about explaining which policy perspectives are better for America? . . . oh, right, sorry.)

I was watching CNN today and they had the DJIA updating by the second on the screen, plus a scroll of headlines at the bottom, plus whatever the dude on the screen was rambling about.  The problem, obviously enough, is that television allows for all of this "raw" information, but so rarely do you get any analysis.

Possibly, with addition of moving pictures to the news, you get a more "real" perspective on what's happening.  Sometimes, not having a television makes me feel that I'm missing out.  Maybe I'd understand what was happening in Iran if I could see the pictures.  Of course, what you see is represented as "real" or "objective", but is, in fact, subjective and determined - you get what the person behind the camara and the folks in the editing booth want to show you.  On top of this, although a picture is worth a thousand words, without context, the picture is still only a part of the greater story.  It's the greater story that I think gets lost with mainstream media - it's a whole lot of "objective" journalism (read - inoffensive), and so little context and analysis.  

To me, when it comes to choosing between CNN and, say NPR, or Democracy Now, it's a choice between Quantity and Quality.

American Democracy

So, why is it that other nations are experiencing popular movements that challenge their governments to do better, whereas Americans are pretty much just disconnected?

Some possibilities:

1) The Bread and Circus Theory - America, given the advanced state of our economy, and technological development, is distracted and more or less sated.  We don't care about being powerless, as long as we have our big screen televisions, our Internet (esp. YouTube, and MySpace) and as long as we can get our Mickie D's.  Even the poor in America are, like, millionaires (to be absolutely glib and obnoxious about it) compared to the poor in other nations.  People might complain, but the welfare state works well enough to keep people from doing any more than that.

2) The American System is Fucked, But It's Better Than Anywhere Else Theory.  There is some validity to this.  Afterall, the people in Iran are not just protesting a close vote that they think was rigged and then resolved unfairly (similar to the American 2000 election that brought GWBush to office).  They also are dealing with a government that is much more repressive in terms of fundamental free press rights, that is overseen by a theocratic, relatively shadowy organization that pre-screens candidates, etc.  The American system has its problems, but we've come to accept those problems as aberrations from an otherwise decent political process.

3) The Lack of Organizing Theory.  Critics of American society have misconstrued rhetoric for action.  And cynics and the disenchanted have misconstrued action for violence.  Nobody knows what to do.  Nobody knows how to organize anymore.  Or maybe, we have become so distrustful of organizations generally, that we're not interested in being organized.  The point, though, is that a lot of critics seem to think that their well-argued and Truthful criticisms will be enough to spontaneously spark an uprising.  What we lack is organizing.  Why are the only people that knock at my door either selling me something or trying to get me involved in one mayoral campaign or another?  The only people that are organizing like that are the people that are already in the system - where is the counter-system organizing?  There are many disaffected, but they are all on their own - individually disaffected, and therefore powerless.

Why White Kids Like Ice Cube

***Disclaimer*** Although I've become a sort of resident expert on all things White, I might know about as much about mainstream White culture as I do about Latino culture (little to none, to my dismay) or Black culture.  I've spent most of my life on the outside looking in, and although most of my peers growing up were White, the ones I gravitated to were hardly part of the mainstream.  ***End of Disclaimer***

The question came from my colleague, fellow (although he's been at it a lot longer than I) blogger, and mind I admire, Harold Clemens: "Why do White kids like Ice Cube?  Don't they realize that he's talking about them?"

And the answer is: well, first of all, anybody who is listening to Ice Cube assumes that he's talking about the other White people.  Certainly, not me.  At least that's what we told ourselves.  I hung out with the freaks and punks at the University of Scranton (btw - Scranton, PA has to be the lamest city in the world).  My friends into hardcore punk were also into hardcore rap.  We also talked about the impending race war (we weren't making this stuff up, there was an article I read about that time - 1994/5 - in the San Francisco Bee about the far-right neo-Nazis and their plans for the race war) and how we knew which side we would be on and it wasn't the lighter shade.  Listening to Ice Cube was an act of solidarity.  Cube scratched the same itch that, say, Snapcase, or Sick of it All, did.  We were pissed with American society and here were musicians (that term might be contested by some, but fuck you and your bourgeois standards) that found a way to express the anger we had against injustice.

Anyways, there were also plenty of wealthy White kids that were clearly not rebelling against the larger system, but listened to Cube nonetheless.  I think this was because of a personal aggravation with the "lack of freedom" in American society.  That is, they found Fuck tha Police to be an anthem, because they felt the police took away their rights.  Kind of like the number of college student riots across the country in the late 90s because the bars shut down at 3am, or whatever.  This wasn't revolutionary, this was reactionary bullshit.  White kids listening to Cube because he said fuck the system, but only taking him seriously as far as their own individual preferences and prerogatives were concerned.  Kind of like my high school friend who sang PE's 911 is a Joke, and complained about the po-po showing up 10 minutes after they were called in Newton, fucking, MA - at one point the city with the lowest crime rate in all of America.  I'm pretty sure he has never done a damn thing about the larger problems of racism in America, but he sure felt Public Enemy spoke to him and he listened to their music.

Anyway, the point, I suppose, is that there might be a variety of reasons why White kids listen to Ice Cube, or rap, or whatever, some of them more noble than others.  There are those White kids, like, say Eminem, who relate because, for the most part, it tells their story.  There are those who relate because they recognize the truth of what is being said, and want to bear witness to that truth.  And there are those who relate because it meets their own selfish and immediate needs.

Political Correctness

What does this even mean?  I used to get upset with people who criticized political correctness.  It seemed like most of them were assholes that wanted the right to be assholes, which I suppose is their right, but that doesn't mean that we have to shut up and not criticize them for being assholes.  The point of political correctness seemed to be that we should think critically about our cultural norms and change those patterns of speech that seemed to reinforce and/or create cultural norms that were anti-democratic. 

The most obvious example of political correctness in my mind was the end of the word "nigger".  At least where I went to school, it was so socially inappropriate that I had friends who used the term, "the N-word" in casual conversation.  So, when I came across people that railed against using the term sanitation worker, instead of garbage man, I would usually respond, "Yeah, and let's bring back 'nigger' while we're at it," to try to shock them into realizing that words are culturally powerful.  I don't think it worked, but I was young and naive enough to think I was fighting my own little battle in the 90s culture wars.

But, on the other hand, does changing the language change beliefs, values and behaviors?  Well, maybe for some.  Or maybe it changes the cultural atmosphere for the young'uns growing up.  Maybe I was less racist because "the N-word" had become unmentionable in my community.

But even if this is true, I suspect that it was a much more organic and gradual process, rather than a fad, which it seemed like political correctness was.  Probably, p.c.-ness died out because it ended up being so inauthentic.  Euphemism does not change hearts and minds.  Instead, you had the reactionaries, who were determined to be as un-p.c. as possible and were able to win cool points as assholes because they were rebelling against the man.  You also had a whole lot of closet assholes that might talk the p.c. talk in public, but be racist/sexist/homophobic/take your pick of the asshole category at home, with friends, etc.

The real trick is how to be authentically decent people - that's not pc, that's love.

What's up with Iran?

Seriously, what's up with Iran?  It's so hard to tell what is going on there because the government is putting the kibosh on the press and Internet and cell-phones have been shut down.  There's Twitter, but like I said earlier, Twitter is hardly a reliable source of information.  Plus, how many Iranis actually have access to Twitter?

So, is this a situation where a majority of people have been fucked over and aren't going to take it anymore?

Or is it the case of a sizable minority that can't stand the fact that it lost?  Is this 2000, when Democrats should have been in the street burning busses and buildings and generally running amok - pissed that the majority-chosen candidate lost out in a Supreme Court decision?  Or is this 2004, when half the country had to shake its collective head and wonder why the Dems couldn't come up with a better candidate than John Kerry?

 

A friend of mine brought up the possibility of CIA involvement.  I'd be surprised.  He's cynical enough to be surprised if they are not.  But, I figure

1) the US is currently dealing w/ the repercussions of involvement in Iran (see the Shah), and if there was any real evidence of US involvement again, we'd be set back in our relationship with Iran, like, 100,000,000 years.  We'd lose all credibility with our allies, and Iran would probably get a nuke w/o too much fuss from other nations, and then Israel would attack Iran and then the Middle East would, like, explode.  It just wouldn't be that smart.

2) The CIA does coups pretty well.  Talk to/bribe/arm/whatever, a couple of key leaders and, boom, next thing you know, you've got the Shah, or Pinochet, or whichever 3rd world military dictator you want.  This doesn't seem to be that sort of event, which leads us to

3) This is a massive, relatively spontaneous, popular demonstration.  There is no way the CIA orchestrated this.  Could they have been involved on some level?  I suppose, but it had to have been really low-key: propaganda, perhaps.  But there doesn't appear to really be a leader of this uprising, and the CIA simply couldn't have organized the masses - they don't have the resources, plus leaderless masses probably freak out the CIA as much as they freak out the Irani leadership.

So, is this what democracy looks like?  Actually, I think so.  At least on the street, there is this massive democratic movement.  It's facing a much less democratic system than ours, but at least the society gets it.  The people seem to have maintained the nugget of freedom from the Iranian Revolution, even as the system has become institutionalized and reactionary.  The people in the streets are at least forcing the state to deal with them.  Unfortunately, it seems like the state's main way to deal is to beat the crap out of people, but I think that in order to move forward, the leadership is at least going to have to make some real concessions.

So, given all this, what should US involvement be?  Mostly, I think we're actually playing it right.  On the one hand, if we really believe in democracy and freedom, we need to be saying something.  On the other hand, this is really just their business, so we can't get too involved.  As much as the Republicans have been griping about Obama's lack of response, it seems totally appropriate for our Congress to get all apoplectic and make the points about democracy, but our diplomat in chief has been keeping his head and staying super calm and basically getting involved as little as possible.

Another Problem with Education

I've been musing a lot about the problem with contemporary education, but I'm a little stuck.  On the one hand, maybe it is that education and bureaucracy are like oil and water - they just don't mix.  After all, educators are in the people business and bureaucracies, perforce, deny any humanity (individuality) to their clients.  You go to the DMV and you are a number.  You go to the IRS and you are a number.  If you go to a school and all you are is a number to them, I'd suggest getting the fuck out.  Schools are communities.  Bureaucracies are anti-life, anti-human, anti-creativity.

And with that, I start thinking that public education, something I've championed for the last 15 years because I think public education is about all that's left that has the potential to bring us together as a nation (good thing), is actually bad for kids.

But, on the other hand, maybe it's not the bureaucracy, but rather that the bureaucracy is broken.  Whenever I hear people complain about bureaucracy, I think of the one, extraordinarily effective, and efficient bureaucracy that I know of.  The military.  I know this is going to sound fucked up, but hear me out here.

The military does attempt to strip you of your individuality and remake you in their image.  But on the other hand, the US military anyway, also trains you to think for yourself.  It's like they need to create a sense of community before they allow people to be individuals.  It makes sense, and I think it makes sense for schools as well.  Instead, we just throw people together in a building and expect things to just magically work.  People don't worry about systems and efficiency and effectiveness because, all too often, they have personal projects or issues or power that they need to pursue.  And the schools often (not always) fail.

I've been thinking about the people I've looked up to and/or idolized and so many of them have had experience in the military, and I'm beginning to wonder if this is a significant common denominator.

Short list from off the top of my head:

Che Guevara (ok, not US, but still . . .)

My Grandpa

Bobby Seale

My professor

JFK

So, maybe the military isn't such a bad bureaucratic structure to follow.  And it clearly works pretty damn well, whatever you think of the morality of being able to take over entire nations with a handful of soldiers.

Ergo, the problem for education isn't the bureaucracy, per se, but rather that the bureaucracy is inefficient, unaccountable and ineffective.  If we concentrated on competence and structures of accountability and systems for accomplishing mundane tasks (and left the art of teaching in the hands of the competent artists we've hired) then maybe our educational system wouldn't be a total shambles.  Unfortunately, it seems that we are willing to give jobs to and promote any sucker with a degree and a desire to "help kids" whatever the hell that means.

Latest Read: The Things They Carried

O'Brien, Tim.  The Things They Carried.  New York: Broadway, 1998.

This is a classic, and really one of my favorite books about war.  I'm not really into the non-fiction war stories, as the blood and guts and killing tends to not have any larger purpose.  But this fictionalized account tries (and I think largely succeeds) to try to create some meaning from the meaningless death that war is really all about.

The book is presented as a series of stories that the author tells about his experience as an American soldier in Vietnam.  The first story sets the theme; in an almost lyrical style he tells of the literal things the soldiers carried - everything, even the minute stuff, and also the psychological and emotional weight that they carry.  It makes a point about how what we choose t to carry (or choose not to carry) says something about us as human beings.  Our identity is caught up in our objects, and our memories.  Those that we keep and those that we discard.  But it's the act of keeping or discarding, rather than the objects themselves, that really speaks to who we are.

I think we, as a culture, have gotten confused and have mistaken the objects as the true representatives of identity.  I am what I buy.  But our true identity is not in the objects that we buy, but rather in our psychological need to buy stuff in order to prove that we are better, or different, or whatever.  It's not the surface appearance that really matters.

O'Brien seems to be communicating this throughout the rest of the book.  Because it is the stories, in the end, that serve to identify the author and, by implication, all of us.  Stories of bravery, of cowardice, of survival, of saving lives and taking lives, of redemption, of loyalty, of life.

Racist Fucks, sorta

I got into a debate/argument/discussion about Elvis and racism the other day.

It started when a student asked me if Elvis was racist.  My answer was that, well, I didn't know that much about Elvis and, given that I have a penchant for (read: sick and uncontrolled habit of) making things complicated, it depended on what he meant by racist.  I had started by reflecting on the fact that Elvis got filthy rich singing songs that the original (Black) singers did not get paid for, but said student was called away before I could finish my exposition, so I asked my friend and colleague his opinion.  His response was the following:

"The majority of white Southerners born in the 1920s were racist fucks." (ergo: Elvis was, probably, racist.)

I, again given my inability to control my ability to be a royal pain in the ass, tried to argue the counterpoint.  It was basically a losing argument, but what had set me off was the ease with which a large number of people get lumped together.  On the one hand, of course, they were racist fucks.  On the other, I think some were probably more racist than others and for varying reasons - some out of hatred, some out of ignorance.  And I think that that matters.  While hatred must be opposed firmly, ignorance can be overcome relatively easily.  I think the majority of racist people were ignorant, rather than hateful.  Their kids learned better and were less racist, which is how we got to the point where we have a Black President.  Of course, this glosses over institutionalized racism - but at least individualized, conscious racism has been seriously diminished.

As for Elvis, I did some research (ok - I just googled it) and according to this op-ed, Elvis sought to break down racism by popularizing Black music for a white (young) audience.

I Love Sesame Street

I'm not a huge fan of Nancy Gibbs' writing over at Time magazine (you know, given how often I gripe about this publication, I'm beginning to wonder why I read it . . . I suppose it's because I like to think it keeps me in touch with main-stream America), but she had an interesting piece the other day about Sesame Street's influence on our President.

It made me reflect on what I loved about Sesame Street as a kid, how it also made me who I am, and why I have big issues with where it is today (although, granted, I haven't seen a second of it in a really, really long time).  And, before you start, I know this is going to make me sound like an old man complaining about how much better things were back in my day . . . but, really, last time I saw Sesame Street it was a lot more visually intense than it was when I was a kid, and I think that is not good.  There was a lot of flashing, and quick cuts, and it seemed like they were trying really hard to compete with video games and action animated TV shows.  I found it really distracting from whatever point they were trying to make.  They also did one sketch where they counted to bazillion (ok - 20, but that's still a lot of counting and it seemed a little drawn out).

Artistically, what I always liked about Sesame Street was the drama.  Real stuff happened on the Street - it was usually fairly mundane, but I still remember the day that I found out that Mr. Hooper died (RIP) - on the 6 o'clock news.  It was intense.  Anyways, it seemed like real people dealing with real emotions (although in retrospect, most of it was probably just acting) - sometimes having fun, sometimes being sad, or angry, or whatever.  The point is that it was the drama that pulled me in and that I think ends up getting cut with all these new-fangled camera and editing techniques.  I'd prefer to see them go back to concentrating on old-fashioned story-telling (btw - it's the same reason that Star Wars is dead to me after the horrors that were Episodes 1 through 3), but that would probably kill the Nielsen ratings - stupid Americans.

Anyhow, Sesame Street was a major part of my childhood; it was about the only thing I was allowed to watch.  I was in love with Maria from the show.  I think it probably had a major influence on what I conceived of when I thought of a city neighborhood and my idealization of what life in the city should be like: a diverse community of people living communally.

One Problem with Education

It's too easy to become an educator (not just teachers, admin too), and too easy to get tenure.  It's not quite the same thing, but I happen to know a teacher who works in early childhood education.  One of the substitute teachers at her school just received her degree in ECE, has several years of experience as a sub and is now looking for her own classroom.  Only problem is that the woman is beyond incompetent and just not that bright - at least based on the stories I hear.  It's just way too easy to get "qualified".  Taking courses is not the same thing as teaching them.  

Somehow, I think said teacher, or many of the incompetents I've seen drifting through my own system, wouldn't have made it through law school, or med school.  If we want high quality teachers, we're going to need to start asking them to do a bit more than sit through some bullshit pedagogy courses.  There are some more intensive programs out there, but teacher programs should definitely see themselves as gate-keepers.

Private schools are often pointed out as examples of schools that work because without tenure, they can weed out the bad teachers more easily.  And they don't require as much in the way of qualifications.  The problem with this line of thinking is that there are private (generally parochial) schools that don't do a very good job, and public schools that do, despite having tenure.

In the end, I'm still very supportive of teacher rights and having those rights enforced by unions, too often I've seen schools struggle not because of the dearth of qualified teachers, but because of the lack of administrative ability (or a terrible combination of the both).  Teachers should not suffer because of the whims of incompetent administration.  On the other hand, something needs to happen to more effectively weed out those who shouldn't be in front of a classroom in the first place.

What Paul Farmer Believes

NPR has a series called "This I Believe" that often floors me.  It sometimes has famous people, sometimes not, but always has something powerful to share.  So, I guess, it's not much of a surprise, fearless reader, that when Paul Farmer shared his essay from "This I Believe" that it would end up here.

I love Paul Farmer.  I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  I love him.  He's full of hope and super inspiring.  What I think I like most about his work is that he's definitely about helping people, and he doesn't worry too much about being politically correct - lives are at stake, after all. But, at the same time, he also sees in a really large framework - like it's not enough to give out vaccines for a particular problem, since people's problems are much larger and much more complex.  At PIH they call it a preferential option for the poor.  It seems like they are looking to build a broader movement, I would encourage you to get involved - check out the video, donate some money, get on the mailing list, stay connected.

The Purpose of Culture

Who are we as human beings?  This is the big picture question, the real question.

I believe that literature teaches us that we are all basically the same - there is something called the human condition, and we all deal with it.  No matter our culture, or even, really, who we are, there is something that makes us human.  Some essential beingness that we all share.  There is great variety, of course.  But there is also great possibility - who we are is not who we must be.  My life, my values, my beliefs, are all contingent.  This means that who we are is really undefined.  I am not like anything in particular, I might tend more in one direction or another, but I am all things.  And you are too.  

This works, as well, on the group level.  Cultures are fundamentally the same and fulfill the same human needs.  As individuals, we have a need to define - to label and identify.  It creates order and allows us to navigate.  So cultures define us and define the rest of the world.  On the most basic level, they tell us who's in and who's out.  They define potential allies and potential enemies.  This is the danger.  The joy of culture is that in order to define ourselves as a group we get creative and the creativity is beautiful - both in terms of cultural artifacts, but also the beauty of people in relationship with each other.

My bigger question, though, is: is it possible to create a culture of the whole?  Can we define the "in" by what is at root our common humanity?  Can we define a culture that permits no other?  That is the world I aim to build.

American Terrorism

Isn't it about time to admit the fact that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not only phenomena of Islam, or the Middle East?  Afterall, we have our own terrorists: anti-abortion killers and white supremacists are the vanguard of our religious, right-wing evil organizations.  Of course, the right gets all bent out of shape with the left-wing "terrorists" - Ayers, Enivronmental Liberation Forces, and so on.  The big difference is that the lefty terrorists may blow stuff up, but are known to value life - pains were taken to avoid killing people.  The right - they don't care.  In fact, they are happy to kill - human life is not valued, unacceptable people are effectively Othered and then killed.

American conservatism, despite its rhetoric, promotes a culture of death.  The social values that it upholds, rigidly maintained from the past, have little bearing on modern society.  Because conservatism refuses change, by definition it refuses life.  To paraphrase a colleague: the only thing that is constant in life is change.  Life itself is change itself.  To resist change is to resist life.  Ultimately, it is this closed-mindedness that defines conservatism and that allows conservatives to participate in actions or rhetoric that lead to violence.

The American right-wing . . . our locally grown Taliban.

Latest Read: Lady Sings the Blues

Holiday, Billie.  Lady Sings the Blues.  New York: Avon Books, 1956.

Did I ever declaim about my love for Billie Holiday?  I've just finished reading her autobiography (written with help from William Dufty) and I think I'm in love with her even more (if that's possible).

My relationship with Lady Day goes back to my first hearing her in high school via my girlfriend.  Problem is, of course, I've been known to be rather contrarian my whole life, so of course if my girlfriend liked it, I was skeptical.  Really, I was skeptical about jazz to begin with.  I was getting turned on to punk rock and jazz sounded, well, too nice.

But there was definitely something about Ms. Holiday's voice, so I guess in a way she saved jazz for me.  And then I started listening more and fell harder.  And then I managed to get my hands on a DVD of some of her performances and I was a goner.

Her autobiography is interesting.  It's not particularly well written, but there are flashes of brilliance.  Overall, the effect is pretty gritty, which makes sense as she had a really rough life.  She was born in Baltimore, which pretty much is enough to give anybody a rough life, but things went steadily down hill from there.  Her parents split soon after her birth, her teenage mother left her in the care of family and went north for work.  Billie was raped by a neighbor at 10 years old, was beaten by her cousin, scrubbed floors in her teen years to help put food on the table, struggled with a major heroin habit, spent time in a women's prison in West Virginia, and even as a successful singer, never had much money - she recorded her first songs for practically free without royalties.

In the end though, the autobiography ends up being redemptive in its own way - she is off heroin, though it is a struggle.  There is a sense of triumph (although tragedy later ensues and she dies of an overdose) over the drugs, the misery of life, and the Feds who want to lock her back up for drugs.  She talks tenderly and at length about her mother, who became her best friend and her biggest fan.

Finally, what struck me was the relatively liberal use of the word "bitches" and a few references to "motherhuggers".  On the one hand, my bourgeois sensibilities were shocked by the cursing, but the punk at me could just not swallow the euphemism.  I guess the 50s allowed a certain level of realness, but drew the line at "motherfucker."

Hatred is Violence

"The responsible white separatist community condemns this," he said. "It makes us look bad."

This was in response to the attack at the Holocaust Museum in D.C.

And it reminds me of the members of the anti-abortion movement that condemned the murder of Dr. Tiller, because it is the same phenomenon. The right-wing has turned away from rational, decent people (there are some) and instead has embraced the extreme rhetroic and vitriol of Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Those two gasbags are public faces, so their rhetoric is relatively muted (if you can believe it). But, their rants create space on the more extreme right for more hate-filled language, which then leads inevitably to violence.

I'm not suggesting that first amendment rights be restricted. I firmly believe that hate-speech is best combated by anti-hate-speech. But, I find it laughable that these groups are pretending to be so shocked that somebody acted on their speech. The point, of course, is that "responsible white separatist community" is a contradiction in terms. White supremacy is white supremacy and irresponsible, period.

What do we live for?

"The crazy thing is that Kristof in real life is an exceedingly cautious man, the kind of guy who never exceeds the speed limit. Traveling with him, on my first trip to the killing zone, I discovered an unassuming, disarmingly sweet, mild-mannered guy. He's the sort who would enjoy the use of a pocket protecter, if he knew he wouldn't be ridiculed. And yet there he was, racing into areas being attacked by armed militias, who, if they knew who he was, might like nothing more than to silence him. After seeing him emerge from interviewing people in a village preparing for a Janjaweed attack, his eyes bloodshot, his hair and face covered with dust from having slept in the open desert, I thought this pocket protector reporter deserved a cape."

Okay - so the quote above is about a dude named Nicholas Kristof. The kind of guy I'd like to be, but I am much more unassuming than that, so . . . right. I don't think I'm quite as cautious, definitely wouldn't be caught dead with a pocket protector, but also probably woudln't be racing into areas being attacked by armed militias, so . . .

I dunno - what do we live for anyways? I'm definitely feeling like I'm becoming less radical, less free, less daring in my old(er) age. I like to think that once upon a time I would have risked it all for Truth and Righteousness. Now, however, I feel like I'm old, and tired, and getting rather conservative. I support people who are willing to take risks in the name of Good. I'm just not willing to put myself on the line - I've decided to come down off the barricades. That's kind of a depressing thought, but there it is.

Maybe, if it was something going on in my own life, something that I thought was wrong, I'd be ready to stand up and say, "fuck, no." This isn't happening on my watch, without a fight. At least, I'd hope that I'd be up for the fight. But, I used to be keen on the idea of looking for conflict - like the guys that went to Spain to fight against the fascists. Some revolutionary, eh?

On Hope

Hope is necessary. For everything and everyone. It is what makes children so crazy cool and adults so often frustrating. Kids are hope incarnate - they just might be the next MLK or Gandhi or at least a decent human being that brings happiness to the world. Adults - they are already formed and will be nothing more than what they are.

The world is a dark place, but it also glimmers with the light of hope and laughter and truth. Sometimes we find hope in religion, or in each other, or in possibilities of life. It's what makes life worth living. It is the crux of everything that is important. It is the hope in the revolution - that we will learn to love each other, that is what is good with humanity.

On the other hand, it is scary to hope. Because it is future, it is unknown - this is the greatness and the frustration of hope. For, what if we hope, and it is wasted? What if our hope turns to disappointment. The anger of so many people is predicated on the fear of hope. They do not want to hope because they have been burned so many times before. Negativity and sarcasm and pessimism grow along with hopelessness and those who are in this place fear hope because for them hope is so often empty.

To be Remembered

To be remembered is to live.  Who we are is defined by how we are remembered.  Will we be remembered for our accomplishments?  For our kindness?  For our strength of character?  For all that negativity gets preference on the 10 o'clock news, it's what we add to the world that gets printed in our obituaries.

This is what is behind the drive for celebrity and fame - the chance to live after death, to make a mark on the world, to be important in some way.  Most of the masses of humanity live quiet lives that most people think don't make much of a difference - if you are not well-known, it seems that your impact on the world is negligible.  But, humanity thinks too big - we all may not be able to make a mark on the world as a whole, but we can definitely have a huge impact on those around us.  We remember our forebears in the stories that we tell to our children, and we will be remembered, in turn, by our children and our children's children.  Also, we remember our neighbors and friends, the people in our local community.  The people that are close to us can tell us who we are, and eventually tell others who we were.

Beauty and Worth

I'm not exactly a looker, so perhaps it's from hatin' that I write the following.  I'd like to think that it comes from an objective observation, but . . . well, you know . . . if a lobster can be too beautiful to eat, then . . . well . . . perhaps there is something too this whole physical beauty thing.

But really, why is it that we value beauty in people?  I mean, on the one hand I can understand the whole attractiveness thing, but to go so far as to give awards for beauty?  Or to value people because of their beauty?  It's not like it's hard to be beautiful - it just happens.  Why do we feel we need to publicly recognize people for their beauty?  Why do my students think it's a viable career choice?  Why do people get paid for being beautiful?  How do they add value to this world by merely existing?

But, that's people for you, I guess.  We judge our self-worth by our physical attractiveness, and we judge others' worth by their physical attractiveness.  I'd like to think we can transcend that and judge people by what they offer to the world.

Relationships and Revolution

The revolution is about changing our notions of community - and so the essence of the revolution lies in the relationships that we have with others. So, what is at the root of those relationships? Are they built on love and Truth? Or are they about fear and loyalty? Are we respected because of who we really are? What is the basis for our understanding of respect?

It seems that the value in the community is not in the actual individuals who make up the community, but the nature of the relationships that define the community. The relationship is greater than the people who are involved in the relationship. The sum is greater than the parts. From an economist perspective, it is in the relationship that people take on meaning and value. We might love others, but the value is not in others, but in the loving.

The revolution can also be viewed from the perspective of power. Some have alot, and use it to get more of it. Others don't have much, and generally lose what little they have. But power is not a zero-sum game - it can be win-win through building loving, trusting relationships. Strong communities can make the individuals within those communities more powerful - it's not just the act of having more than one person (where power might be added together) but because the relationship creates it's own meaning and value - power becomes multiplied.

Latest Read: Road-Side Dog

Milosz, Czeslaw. Road-side Dog. Trans. Robert Hass. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999.

This latest read is a book of poetry and short-essays. Actually, poetry is maybe not quite the right word. At least, if it is used, it is meant in only the broadest sense. Milosz is pushing the boundaries of the stereotypical poem format, as his pieces tend to be formless. For instance:

---

Decency

When I was, as they say, in harmony with God and the world, I felt I was false, as if pretending to be somebody else. I recovered my identity when I found myself again in the skin of a sinner and nonbeliever. This repeated itself in my life several times. For, undoubtedly, I liked the image of myself as a decent man, but, immediately after I put that mask on, my conscience whispered that I was deceiving others and myself.

The notion of sacrum is necessary but impossible without experiencing sin. I am dirty, I am a sinner, I am unworthy, and not even because of my behavior but because of evil sitting in me. And only when I conceded that it was not for me to reach so high have I felt that I was genuine.

---

And yet, without form, Milosz still is able to present some fairly profound thoughts and ideas. The idea that we are sinners and that through sin we express our genuine selves. Life appears to be a war between our true selves and ourselves as we want to be. We desire goodness, but at root, as human beings, we are flawed. It is the crisis of the soul. And Milosz gets at it effectively, even if somewhat inelegantly.

---
The Language

The desire for truth is confronted with poems, with tales written by you long ago. And then you are ashamed, because it was all sheer myth. Neither did any of it happen, nor did you feel the feelings contained therein. The language itself unfurled its velvet yarn in order to cover what, without it, would equal nothing.

---

Road-side Dog is rather too obviously a collection of an old man. Wistful, plaintive, creeky, at times the poems seem to be poetic leftovers - never quite polished or prepared for publication, but thrown in, because at this age, what does the poet care what people think? Yet, there are gems. In "The Language" Milosz seems a bit sad about his past work - regretful, perhaps, of the lies that a poet tells. The pursuit of truth, which can only be described through lies creates a conundrum. But the poem is also an ode of sorts to the power of language itself - that which conceals and reveals in the same turn and ultimately writes itself.

---

from Love of Knowledge

In order to become a famous man, was it necessary, as early as one's childhood, to turn one's back on people . . . ? To scorn them? To sacrifice everything to the acheivement of one goal? And what goal? Is it, they wondered impartially, a disinterested love of knowledge? And what does that mean?

---

Among the longer pieces, the most successful happens (though perhaps it is not happenstance) to be also the longest. In "The Tale of a Convert" Milosz introduces a character who as a result of an unexplained life-crisis, becomes rabidly Roman Catholic. The short story tells of his conversion, his fundamentalism, his eventual acceptance of other approaches to his religion. The story includes friends' versions of what happened to the convert. Ultimately, what softens him, perhaps unsurprisingly given the soft-hearted older man who is the author, is the love and compassion of a woman.

---
from Falling in Love

Yes, I was often in love with something or someone. Yet falling in love is not the same thing as being able to love. That is something different.

The Revolution Will NOT Be Tweeted

No, really.  Twitter has to be the stupidest invention yet.  It's like every technological "advance" that is developed is just another step in the downfall of civilization.  I realize that this position only confirms the fact that I'm an old, garrulous fuck, but if you can say everything that you need to say in 140 characters or less, perhaps it's better that you not say anything at all.

Reminds me of a Lincoln quote that I love - better to be silent and have people think you are an idiot than to speak (or tweet) and remove all doubt.

Now, I know that I tend to be a bit verbose and over analytical and so clearly I may be biased against this whole Twitter thing, but really?  I suppose there are a few arguments for the less-is-more crowd; I appreciate haiku as much as the next guy; I hear that what's not said can be as beautiful as what is.  But Twitter is a mass-media phenomenon; the antithesis of less-is-more.

Really, the only thing that I see a parallel with is advertising.  Essentially, Twitter turns us all into advertisers via our own personal consumption- we only have time to say: "Check out this cool thing I'm doing/reading/buying/eating, etc. - you should be doing it too!"  Especially for the Twitter feeds that masses of people follow - the celebrity feeds.

And so, fearless reader, instead of people actually participating in a genuine democracy where they are empowered by ideas (ie - the revolution), our lives are dominated by the logic of the marketplace - an ultimately dehumanizing experience.

Exploitation is the Problem

When it comes down to it, my biggest problem with people is their willingness to exploit others.

It could be the workers getting exploited for the profit of the owners.

It could be the women (usually) exploited sexually for gratification by men (usually).

It could be the homebuyers exploited by the banks.

In each of these cases, of course, there is an element of contracting that takes place.  But the problem is that contracting implies that equal parties are engaging in the relationship.  Exploitation implies that there is an unequal power relationship between the two parties.  That means that those with power are able to craft the contract such that they get more benefit (the rich get richer, the poor get poorer).

This isn't to say that the less-powerful do not have agency in creating the contract, just that they are generally getting less than they give and this goes against my whole commie "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" thing.

Quote 3

"Don't tell me about those pioneer chicks hitting the trail in those slip-covered wagons with the hills full of redskins.  I'm the girl who went West in 1937 with sixteen white cats, Artie Shaw and his Rolls-Royce - and the hills were full of white crackers." - Billie Holiday

I have a confession to make, fearless reader.  

I'm in love with Lady Day.  

Really, I don't see how anybody cannot be in love with her.  Her voice, her swagger, her singing, her style, her songs . . .  *swoon*

I'm reading her autobiography (the review will appear in a future installment of Latest Read), but thought I'd share this gem of a quote now, since it's so brilliant.

I love the imagery of a Great Depression jazz/blues band doing a cross-country tour, led by a Rolls Royce, heading through the most rural, fucked up (Dust Bowl, anybody?) parts of the US.  And making the comparison to the homesteaders from 70 years earlier is spot on. 

The irony - the settlers had invaded the land, claiming right of ownership and wondering what the hell the Indians' problem was.  Now, a few generations later, their descendants are all up in arms about a black woman touring with a white band - this cultural invasion from the East.

I also perceive a sense of dignity in spite of it all that seems mirrored in the settler experience.  But, Holiday is not just making a comparison, but also making a claim that her experience was actually more harrowing, which makes sense.  After all, she was just trying to sing some songs and make some money, and had to face a lot of fucked up, degrading stuff  on top of the threat of violence.  The settler women at least were part of a larger, invading group that was armed and perpetrated at least as much violence as it received.

Somebody should make a road-trip movie about the experience - I'd do it Hunter Thompson and gonzo-journalism style kinda like Easy Rider, but cooler and with better music.

How Do You Make It In America Today?

Once upon a time, fearless reader, two hundred years ago, or so, it was possible to work hard and make it in America.  Young people could become workers in a business, learn some skills and build up some capital so that they could start their own business (and hire the next entrepreneurs).  This became an oppositional ideology to slavery and a justification for abolitionism and ultimately the Civil War.

Unfortunately, almost exactly at the same time that this ideology was coming into being, the reality was shifting.  The Northern economy was becoming solidly capitalist and industrial.  As a result, workers were learning fewer skills and earning less of their own capital.  Once things solidified in the Industrial Era, the notion of upward mobility through hard work was only useful as a rationale for why people were poor - they just didn't work hard enough, or worse, they were genetically unfit.

So, then, what is the basis for social mobility?  Well, before the most recent economic changes, it was education.  If you were poor, you could hope and pray and work hard to help your kids get a high school diploma - with either a vocational or academic focus.  Today's focus on "college prep" means fewer students have access to vocational work.  Either the schools have the wrong focus, or their just aren't that many vocational jobs available.  With the changes in the economy, I wonder if the latter isn't more accurate.  But the "college prep" curriculum isn't doing much for students, especially disadvantaged students.  Too few have the backgrounds and raw talent to overcome their disadvantages and become truly successful in college.

So, perhaps we need to rethink what we're offering.  I wonder if there isn't room for a new apprenticeship?  I have no idea what I'm talking about here, being just a history teacher, but how much "college prep" do you need to do computer maintenance?  Or, maybe the schools need to go back to an academic AND vocational model, but update their workshops from woodworking to computer engineering?

Pro-life = pro-murder

RIP George Tiller

And this is precisely what I hate about the so-called pro-life advocates.  The problem is that their rhetoric is more than often couched as a moralistic crusade against "baby-murderers".  While those of us on the pro-choice side might see a certain logic in the pro-life argument and might be willing to look for areas of commonality and agreement (see Obama's speech of a couple of weeks ago at Notre Dame) the religious right tends to see any talk with other thinking people as compromising with evil.

How can you have a rational debate and discussion with people that think you are the devil incarnate?  Oh yeah, you can't.  Instead, debate turns into the yelling matches that bring in the big bucks for the "news" stations.

More seriously, the rhetoric and reflexive hatred makes murder not just possible, but likely.  You can't go around calling people baby-murderers and then act surprised when somebody starts talking (and acting on) "justifiable homicide".  Some of the anti-abortion people are trying to run away, as fast as they can, from this member of their ranks that perpetrated this crime (in a church, no less), but in reality they created the monster.  In fact, many in the movement are actually encouraging more such murders.  So much for pro-life.