Browsed by
Tag: conservatives

Lessons Learned: Personal Version

Lessons Learned: Personal Version

Comments 0 Comment

As the citizens of our country become more polarized, many of them do less thinking through of the issues that really confront us all. The materials they are often given to build their judgments are not only shoddy, but also Orwellian in their misdirection. There are figures out there that rival Reagan in their teflon characteristics. Just keep repeating the talking points. Don’t answer questions. No matter what is proven, just keep repeating. No rinse. Just repeat.

This situation is not only frustrating to watch, but after this last decade of watching it, I have made some judgments of my own.

As I said in a previous post, everyone has a right to express their opinion, but not all arguments are of equal validity or value. A proto-Nazi had the ability in pre-war Germany to express an opinion, no matter how hateful or unfair it might be – but that doesn’t mean such a person escapes the truth – and judgment – that millions of people were unfairly imprisoned, tortured and killed because of the successful spread of those unfounded beliefs during a time of economic high stress. I used to be stunned and bewildered that such a thing could ever have happened, and I didn’t really understand the importance of never forgetting. There have been other events in the world that are as horrifying, but this one resonates so strongly to me as I reflect in sadness upon some of the policies of modern-day Israel, and of the U.S. It seems as though another wave of hate is moving across the world and it’s not specific to one or two countries. Some countries are acting on the right for freedom and fairness as some of the usual value-bearers are forgetting them. Yes, “it” can happen here, and I deeply pray that’s not the future that is being chosen as correct by the American people themselves. Can I be neutral? Can you?

Another example: A creationist can express an opinion against natural selection, but it’s not borne out by scientific evidence and witness (and therefore one wonders if it could really be in alignment with God, supposing there is one in the way that people seem to imagine). And again: The Westboro Baptist group can express their beliefs – no matter how horrible – near the funerals of our soldiers, but that doesn’t mean they are authentic Christians (supposing that such a thing exists). Last: Groups with money to lose or gain can pay to influence targeted populations, often with astounding success (but you must have to be cold, cold, cold to be able to do it if you know that you’re misleading or outright lying). Do you grok me on this?

I have some conservative friends with whom I can enjoy a good debate, because they are often aware of and follow the ground rules. I say “conservative” because I would make a distinction between them and the no-longer fringe (in the sense of numbers) right wing. While I obviously think people who are that far to the right are very mistaken and also very often intentionally misled, the biggest frustration for me is that you can no more have a real discussion with them than you can with a newly-converted fanatic.

My positions tend to adapt to better information and to the influx of different points of view, but they are informed by assessments and re-assessments that have built up over time as I follow a number of themes across the political landscape. Therefore, they have become fairly well-stabilized.

I saw the language of liberation warped out into a false characterization of repressive political correctness that not only effectively deconstructed much of what had been gained in freedom, but became a self-fulfilling description as even academe seemed to be affected by and eventually act out the crazy cartoon version. I saw concerns about community breakdowns – teen pregnancies, the influx of meth, the migration of jobs – turn into attempts to re-take control of women, use drug laws to steal property, and overturn the assumption of innocence until proven guilty – which further morphed into the loss of habeas corpus, and the extradition of prisoners for torture. I saw a flawed country move into increasingly schizoid modes: prudes and shameless exhibitionism, closeted self-haters attacking gays, some progress toward an understanding of race as a legacy cultural construct even as the KKK and Hatriot groups increase their memberships – and their levels of violence – and Americans want to target the only ones among our number who could help turn the tide against radical forms of Islam in the world. I’ve watched as we’ve been manipulated into hating each other, and into somehow thinking that it’s American to think of other Americans as not “real” Americans – or even as “unAmerican.”

On and on – one step forward – and, how many steps back today?

My working definition of service as a teacher is to instruct, in every possible way, with enough method and discipline and content and destabilization of habit to encourage every student to learn what it really means to think critically, ethically and lovingly *for themselves.* My working definition of a good student is to pay attention to thoughts, people and events that can grant a better ability to do so.

Consider the perfect performative irony of this brilliant scene from Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”:
‎

BRIAN: No. No, please! Please! Please listen. I’ve got one or two things to say.
FOLLOWERS: Tell us. Tell us both of them.
BRIAN: Look. You’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody! You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we’re all individuals!
BRIAN: You’re all different!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS: I’m not.
ARTHUR: Shhhh.

Now… friends can be teachers one moment, students the next, and yet again peers. We are all teaching one another, either positively or negatively. It’s a long life, with a never-ending supply of lessons.

Unfortunately, as open as one tries to be as a teacher, a student, a peer, a friend, it sometimes happens that you reach the end of the helpful lessons with a person and instead you find yourself in danger of unravelling some of the good lessons instead.

When an overall stance lacks fairness toward such a diverse and interesting population as exists in the U.S.A., and the thinking has no critical method of interpretation, and the ethic is somewhat less than compassionate, and derision has replaced caring, the number of options for dialogue dwindles very quickly. What’s left? You can try to present that view of how things are, with an aim to change it or heal it. You can agree not to discuss the topics that reveal this situation in all its reality. You can offer other perspectives and “what-if” situations, or show how the issue may affect that person alone – for purely selfish reasons, if there’s nothing else. You can pretend it doesn’t matter, or argue that other aspects of the relationship might make up for it, or you may feel that it’s ethical and caring to forgive it. It’s only the last that was – finally – compelling. There are reasons to forgive some of it, with an understanding of how it has happened to be that way.

But I guess I have a lot more learning to do – because I just don’t have the spiritual discipline (even in understanding) to be able to practice that forgiveness in every interaction. I’d rather practice forgiveness on those who aren’t pretending to be my friend while getting pleasure from causing me distress.

Lessons learned.

Bill Clinton on Fox News

Bill Clinton on Fox News

Comments 1 comment

I don’t always agree with Bill Clinton, but he sure cheered me up today. I was starting to think he’d completely lost his mind, hanging about with the Bushes.

CLINTON: Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little “Pathway to 9/11,” falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.

And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in “Black Hawk down,” and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.

OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Usama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of ’93. …

Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would’ve had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too. All I’m asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted. So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is … how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, “Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?” I want to know how many you asked, “Why did you fire Dick Clarke?”

I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

The whole transcript is here.

‘Bout time, Bill.

Kudos, thanks, and a kiss anytime. You’re the man. Just seeing you argue again lit up my world today.

Where on earth can we find another like him? Who has what it will take to turn this country around?

American Understanding Dawning

American Understanding Dawning

Comments 2 comments

We are an optimistic nation, a hopeful nation. Whatever our politics, we hope that our political and corporate leaders value our lives. This is a wonderful thing about America. But it does leave us somewhat open to manipulation, deceit, and betrayal. I think this Administration is disastrous to us in ways that are have been sufficiently transparent for some time but that many people don’t want to see or believe.

Fellow Americans, I do believe that more of us are beginning to understand. More information will only show how deep the damage goes.

Read, please. Read more. Ask questions. Find out. Pick an issue and find out everything you can about it – from different points of view. Put together your own ethical judgment – whatever it is. Become truly informed to your very best ability. Only in this way can we have a functioning democracy again.

Here are a few links to articles that I think are worth reading.

Notes on “Feminazi”

Notes on “Feminazi”

Comments 3 comments

Rush Limbaugh defends his use of the term “feminazi” as “right” and “accurate” in response to a June 22 Washington Post article on Sen. Richard J. Durbin’s (D-IL) controversial floor statement that referenced Nazis. The Post article mentioned Limbaugh’s use of the term “feminazi” as well as other examples of recent political debates in which Nazism has been invoked. From the June 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

In The Washington Post we get a little story: “Tips for the Democrats, Hint: Next time don’t compare anybody to Hitler.” And by the way, the only reason they’re doing it is because Rush Limbaugh invented the term “feminazi.” That’s the sum total of the Washington Post story — Durbin did it because I popularized it first with “feminazi.” I haven’t used that term on this program in years. But it still gets to ’em, doesn’t it? And you know why? [chuckles] Because it’s right. Because it’s accurate. [laughs] And I’m not going to apologize, but I will apologize if it hurts your feelings. But you know what? I think if you’re offended, it’s your problem. It’s not mine.

Interesting that he claims he hasn’t used that term in years – I have heard him use it on several occasions while trolling across the dial. Media Matters notes that Limbaugh referred to the National Center for Women & Policing and the Feminist Majority Foundation as “feminazis” on his May 27, 2004, broadcast, for example. And here’s another where is is reminscining about an event at New York’s 92nd Street Y also attended by CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield:

It was a frosty evening that night. It had to be, what, back in 1992 or ’93? And I’ll tell you what got me in trouble. Greenfield said, “You really used the word ‘feminazi’? Do you not think that’s an upsetting word to Jews?”

I said, “Well, I don’t think it should be. I mean, if you look at what abortion is, it’s almost comparable to what happened in World War II.” Pfft! Man, you could have felt the ice…”

What is a feminazi? Wikipedia defines: A feminazi is a neologism and invective term of the words feminist and Nazi, used predominantly in United States conservative political rhetoric, to characterize women whose ideas they disagree with as misandrous. That is as having a hatred of men. The term was popularized by prominent broadcaster Rush Limbaugh, who credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, with coining the term. In the extreme formulation, feminazis are seen by conservative commentators as women who persecute men. The term “Feminazi” is not self-applied by any feminist movement or group. The term is often used as a derogatory term for feminist.

Trivia: A similar term Femnazi was coined earlier as the name of the male hating female inhabitants of the fictional planet, Femnaz, in a Legion of Super-heroes story from a 1964 issue of Adventure Comics written by Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel.

What is missing from this definition – fine as far as it goes – is that the hard pseudoreligious right attaches the “Nazi” part of the word to condense a framing of abortion as genocide. Feminazis are defined as pro-abortion, although the term seems to be applied to all feminists, regardless of the topic, as well. That’s already a significant spin of rhetoric. It implies moral bankruptcy and invokes the familiar thought-constellation of “baby-killers, destroyers of life, murderers.”

I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who was truly pro-abortion. I don’t know anyone who would not prefer that abortions were completely unnecessary in all circumstances. Abortion rates (legal or otherwise – you don’t really think there are no abortions when they are illegal, do you?) go down when there is family-planning, birth control, sex education, and honest discussion – when there is less rape and incest and poverty, and so on. The religious right doesn’t seem much concerned about these issues, in contradiction to their claims of moral superiority. How many of the poor are consigned to death or misery under the grand plan of their pro-rich policies? Who wants to cut social programs? No – it’s not about life. It’s about controlling women. They’ve even got some women on board with this. Sheesh. What a classic projection to accuse women of hating men in order to support attitudes that are intended to control women, their bodies, their sexuality, and their choices.

The “knocked-up” women of the rich have always had the option of abortion at the convenience of their men, but I am more concerned about people whose lives can be destroyed rather than Vanessa missing a semester at Yale or disappointing her soon-to-be hubby Biff or whatever. I’d not like to see a return to the days of backalleys and wire hangers. If this were really about “life,” the children born would be welcomed, healthcare would be provided, and so on – not to mention that such folk would have to be opposed to the death penalty. Some of these folks want to bring back stoning (don’t believe me? do a little research of your own). It’s interesting that there are few vegetarians among the hard right – a cow is much more sentient than an 8-week old fetus that doesn’t even have any brainwaves (i.e no consciousness of any kind).

I am also very concerned that fewer doctors are receiving the training to do the basic procedure, which has other uses (as most women know).

Abortion is a complex and ethically-fraught topic. To rhetorically conflate those pro-choicers who are perhaps more familiar with the raw edges of human experience – and who wish to allow women the space for more control over their own bodies and futures without the intervention of patriarchal government structures – with “Nazis” is dishonest, more so than Durbin’s remark. Such women for personal choices in these areas are nothing like Nazis – the ultimate “anti-choice” and “anti-freedom” power structure of the last century. Let’s not forget the men who are for choice either – how many men are forced into shotgun weddings anymore?

Hard-liner anti-choicers consider my ruptured ectopic pregnancy (that nearly killed me and for which there was no hope whatsoever of the survival of the fetus) as an abortion – tell me, what was the alternative?

Roe v Wade was the compromise on a very controversial topic. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. If your sister is raped by your dad, you work it out as best you can using your own decision-making process, with your own network of advisors, and within your own relation to the sacred. And if your child is slated to live three years in horrible pain before dying – and you decide that such a life is better than no life, it is your decision. If your child is born into abject poverty, and that’s ok with you, go for it. If you’ve not raised your children with an understanding about sexuality and their responsibilities because you fear that talking about sex makes it happen, if your boy doesn’t carry a condom because he is in denial that anything will happen, if your daughter enters a fugue state in which she denies she is even pregnant….and you will support and welcome such children to such unprepared parents – that is also your choice. But all the feel-good religious talk in the world isn’t going to matter so much when you and friends and family members are actually confronted with some of the very difficult possibilities surrounding sexuality and reproduction. Talk to your parents and grandparents, look around you. In such cases, there is often no right answer, and the question is who makes the decision? I think that people should be able to make decisions about ethics and religion themselves, especially when it has to do with their own body – and yes, the women has the primary decision-making authority (unless the man wants to carry the pregnancy to term). Besides, in this day and age, education is not only about pregnancy – it’s also about disease. To be uninformed and uneducated and in denial is not only stupid, it’s dangerous.

As a former evangelist and a religion scholar, I know that there is not much in the way of biblical support for being against sex education or birth control. The example of Onan – used against both birth control and masturbation – was an example of someone disobeying God’s weird command (in the circumstances) to have sex and produce a child with his dead brother’s wife. Really read that narrative and then try to justify the arguments! He “spilt his seed upon the ground” (Genesis 38:7-9), but it was the reason and motivation for doing so that was – in the context – wrong. The sin was disobedience – refusing to give his brother’s wife an heir. How many people would accept the surrounding circumstance – that you should marry and have sex with your dead brother’s wife?

In any case, pro-choice views do not imply hating men at all – but only resisting those structures and those men who view women as property, with bodies to be controlled by them. I don’t hate men. I’m a married mom – and my husband values my feminism, and shares my views as part of human rights. There are men-haters, of course (although I suspect not nearly as many as women-haters) but the two groups of “men-haters” and “feminists” are not identical.

Still, “feminazi” is a clever twist of rhetoric. It’s catchy. And it certainly has been effective. Fewer and fewer women self-identify as feminists anymore. Many don’t even realize that there are dozen of kinds of feminisms. All that subtlety and complexity and public discussion – gone. I think that some of the feminists moved on too quickly from real social issues into language politics – and got sidelined at a crucial moment. The messages have not reached popular understanding. I still run into folk who believe it’s all about not shaving or about burning bras!

We are becoming barbaric again – and it isn’t even in the service of any recognizable religious values. The judeo-christian values – caring for the poor, compassion, forgiveness, grace, communion, and so on – are not in evidence – only the ancient controls over the people, and these taken out of context.

All of this for Mammon – money, power, corruption – and supported by the most spectacular examples of repulsive false prophets I could have imagined.