Elena Kagan is NOT gay says friends

So, Elena Kagan is not gay according to her friends.  While this may, or may not be true, it brings up an important question: "Why does it matter one way or the other as it relates to her ability to be an effective Supreme Court Justice?"     

Today in Political Theatre

Xenophobia Reins Supreme in Arizona

I sometimes cannot believe my eyes.  I knew this legislation was in the works, but for it to be signed into law is a completely different thing. (Deep breath!)  OK, in Arizona it is now illegal to teach ethnic studies courses because, well, let me just put a quote here from State schools chief Tom Horne who says:

"...A Tucson school district program promotes 'ethnic chauvinism' and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race.'"

The first problem is that these "ethnic studies" programs are the only place where minority students can get a comprehensive history of their ancestors. When I was in elementary school, black history in the larger history books consisted of Harriett Tubman (she helped free slaves) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (he led the Civil Rights Movement) -- pretty insufficient. 

Contrary to belief, American isn't a melting pot.  Rather, we demand that people assimilate -- which adapting to "the American Way."  But even as people of color, we are constantly reminded (particularly in today's political climate) that we are different and in the eyes of those who largely hold power, inferior.  As such, ethnic studies is a necessary part of educating students.  (Not to mention that there are non ethnic students who take these courses as well because they want to expand their knowledge -- isn't that what education is supposed to be all about?)

Separating Church and State

This is why what Donna Brazil says about ridding ourselves of pundits rings so true.  Sarah Palin is a woman, who I believe, deserves some degree of respect.  She has managed to cobble together a very financially lucrative career by stringing together a bunch of buzz words that don't always add up to something intelligible.  She has certainly managed to speak to/for a segment of the population to whom her folksy charm and good looks appeal.  And while I disagree with about 90% of her political positions, I'm usually willing to hear her out.  But I draw the line here.  Palin is an advocate of going "back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments."

Donna Brazil: Speaker of Truth?

I am usually not a fan of Donna Brazil, but she has spoken the truth.  Brazil says that if she could get rid of one thing in the world, that'd be pundits.  Amen!  She says:

If a single move could restore civility to politics, that is it. Get rid of the left-vs.-right commentators who are just out scoring points for their team. This sort of opinion-mongering is not only boring and predictable, it is destructive of the truth. If your only credentials are "GOP shill" or "Democratic hack," you've no business cluttering up the airwaves or the op-ed pages. My momma always told me that if you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to keep your mouth shut. That's good advice.

Whom do we put in their place? I say replace the pundits with people who have genuine expertise -- whether from their academic work, professional life or personal experience -- on the key issues of the day. Instead of partisan talking heads or mad hatters from the "tea party" preaching their views on, say, health care and taxes, let's hear from doctors and insurance professionals, or the number-crunchers from the Congressional Budget Office. They're much better equipped to help viewers, listeners and readers wade through the facts, arguments and data.

 We'd have a much more informed public if we could just get rid of this one thing.  But we won't. And the reason we won't is because many will make the argument that regular folk and those with actual knowledge (not to infer that ALL of the pundits who are "approved" by producers don't have knowledge) don't make for "good TV."

Today in Oxymoronic News

An Oklahoma Republican congresswoman sent a campaign mailer out to her constituents decrying government spending, which she says, is out of control.  But the flyer was paid for with taxpayer dollars.  Really?  WTF? 

Rip out the Front Page: Breaking News! Journalism isn't Neutral Says Professor

I mean, really?  Did we really need someone to tell us that the "news" we receive isn't neutral? Despite the claims of shows and networks to have "No Bias, No Bull" and be "Fair and Balanced" the opposite is true. This goes for both right and left media.  As Pierre Bourdieu tells us in his fantastic book On Television

"It explains why real information, analysis, in-depth interviews, expert discussions, and serious documentaries lose out to pure entertainment and, in particular, mindless talk show chatter between 'approved' and interchangeable speakers."

When Rhetoric Fails

We have evolved (or devolved) into a society where rhetoric and soundbites rule the day.  And we also largely, get our soundbites from media outlets that support our ideas and ideals and regurgitate those soundbites to people who ideologically share our beliefs.  It's a great opportunity for us to feel smart and well-read.  But it's when you are challenged by someone who is your ideological opposite that problems tend to arise. 

PSA: More Than One Source Needed to Develop a Political Position

I never really care what political bent one has, all I ask is that you REALLY know what your positions are and be able to stand by them when asked to elaborate on your "talking point." That is not the case in this video and it shows why we have such a politically uninformed populace in the United States. Certainly FOX News is not the only culprit, CNN and MSNBC are guilty as well (While Hilary Clinton should have exited the presidential race earlier, I think the overwhelming pressure came from 24-hour news stations like CNN and MSNBC).

Liberal Special Interests vs. The "Right" Thing to do

I can't figure out why supporting social issues is a "liberal special interest" but being opposed is "right." (Sarcasm)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us/politics/17hospitals.html

What Traffic Jams Can Teach Us About Social Issues

Sitting in traffic on I-35 today, I came to a conclusion.  As I sat in traffic for miles only to find out that traffic slowed down only for people to look at the flashing lights on the side of the road.  And as I saw no one, myself included, stop to help, I wondered why can't people just mind their own business?

The Politics of Activism

Justice John Paul Stevens pending retirement from the Supreme Court has been met with a collective yawn by most Americans.  But his retirement offers a great opportunity to examine how the judicial system, an entity that is supposed to be free of politics, tells us more about party affiliation than we like to admit.  In recent history (particularly during the Bush II administration) we heard a lot about so-called activist judges.  But when we deconstruct the term "activist judge" all it really means is someone who disagrees with our position. 

Entertained to Stupidity

If a celebrity (or fauxlebrity) makes a statement in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer to the question is only if we follow them on Twitter and it then gets reported all across the Internet. As someone who has worked in PR for more than 10 years, I certainly know a thing or two about manufacturing news, but the proliferation of the Internet as a growing source of information seems to have multiplied this to the nth degree. We are constantly bombarded with news of mistresses "speaking out," explicit email revelations and encouraged to take sides in celebrity and fauxlebrity splits.

Health Care Reform Post Script

My head is still reeling from watching C-SPAN for most of the day yesterday and watching the "debate" unfold about health care reform. What I think became abundantly clear over the weekend (and arguably through the whole debate process) is not just a difference in ideology, largely going along party lines, and not just the suspicion that we have elected a bunch of 3 year olds to represent us (could they have been less mature) or that our political process is really a time drainer (did it really take all day to get to the vote when largely no one was moved to change their vote by debates, but rather by deals).

Rather, a real socio-economic ideological rift was exposed. I believe health care reform isn't really about access to health care as much it's about the classic American battle between the haves and the have nots. Those who have, want to keep things they way they are because "they work hard for their money and don't want to give it away to those lazy ne'er do wells who only want government handouts." Those who have not, just want access to healthcare for themselves and their family members.

This was crystallized this morning when I went on Facebook and a "friend" invoke the old Reagan line about "the welfare queen" and how she lives on the southside of Chicago (which implies that she's black) and gets $150,000 per year from the government through handouts and use of her four assumed names. Sure, there may be "welfare queens" who do abuse the system and I in no way condone their behavior, but there are also hardworking people who simply cannot afford health care coverage. There are also hardworking people with life threatening diseases who are either uninsurable or are forced to keep jobs for fear of not being able to get coverage from a new employer.

For those who opposed (and still oppose) healthcare reform, I'd be interested to see how they feel about "socialized" medicine and government handouts if they lose their jobs. Or when (and if) they reach age 65 and want to take advantage of "socialized" medicine in the form of Medicare and/or Medicaid.

Perhaps I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't mind paying a little more in taxes to ensure that all American citizens have access to adequate health care. The racial and sexuality-based epithets that were thrown around over the weekend illuminated how important and necessary this reform really is. If it wasn't people would not have been so passionate about it. It wouldn't have been so divisive. This legislation has a 50/50 chance of failing. But if it fails, at least we know that we tried to fix a broken system.

Healthcare in America

If there is any doubt that we need to seriously consider health care reform in America, here it is. This is truly sickening!

http://tinyurl.com/yj5gkom

Whose Fat is it Anyway?

I've listened to the debate over childhood obesity with interest. I've been interested because I am conflicted about how I really feel about the solutions that have been posited about "curing" childhood obesity.

My immediate "go to" is that parents need to take responsibility for what their children are putting into their mouths (and bodies) most of the time. Sure, kids are going to eat junk at school (and trade away or throw away the healthy options packed in their lunches), but parents can control what their children eat for breakfast and dinner. Parents also have the ability to limit what food they bring into the home because they buy it. I know that the counter argument here is that parents are busy and more homes than ever are run either by a single parent or two working parents. I grew up with two working parents as well. And you know what they did? On Sunday, they cooked for the whole week. That's what refrigerators and freezers are for. That's not to say that we didn't have junk food and fast food, but it was eaten in moderation. But we also were forced to go outside and play, which got us doing some kind of physical activity rather than sitting in front of a computer or game console for hours on end.

In other words, the media (and the Obama administration) are making the food manufacturers the evil bandit in this scenario. Which is not to say that the food manufacturers don't have some culpability but the last time I checked we were free to make choices about the foods that we eat. That was one of the thrusts behind giving more information on food labels (including fast food), so that we had the information about what we were putting into our bodies and could make decisions based on those labels. But the bottom line is that Coke, Frito Lay, McDonald's and all the other businesses that make junk food are publicly traded companies. If we stop buying, they stop making because they're all about making money and making their shareholders happy.

Taxing us into allegedly not wanting to purchase fattier foods is a lame idea as well. While it may have an impact, my hypothesis is that it'll largely affect lower income people who perhaps won't be able to afford to buy these fattier foods. So, we'll have a slew of higher income level obese people? What does that really help? But as we have seen with cigarettes, higher prices/taxes haven't really stopped people from smoking. In Chicago, when the tax on cigarettes was raised, many smokers drove to Indiana to "stock up" where the tax on cigarettes was not as high.

I think the real solution is to make healthier eating more affordable and accessible. I am grateful that I can afford to make healthier eating decisions, but I pay for the decision I make. Whenever I go to a healthier grocery store like Trader Joe's, Sprouts, or Central Market, I pay more. A bag of fruit is oftentimes more expensive than a bag of chips. A gallon of water is often the same price as a 2-liter of soda. The price of ground turkey escalates as the amount of fat decreases, which is more expensive than buying ground chuck or ground beef. A bag of almonds (with their anticarcinogen properties) is more expensive than a bag of candy. Trader Joe's, Sprouts, Central Market and other health food stores are often located in the tonier neighborhoods and communities -- and for good reason. The residents of those tonier parts of town can afford to shop there while if a person with less economic resources wants to shop there, there are the added costs of travel as well as the physical expense of buying the food. So, for many, it's cost prohibitive. That is not to say that the Dominick's, Randall's, Jewel's and Kroger's of the world don't offer healthier eating choices. But the fact is, it'll cost more. So, let's focus on that disparity and perhaps when healthier eating choices are more affordable, then people will chose that as an option more frequently than they do now.

Fiscal Responsibility vs The Poor

Today, the Senate voted not to pass a bill that would have provided 500,000 temporary jobs to youth in America as well as a $1.3 billion extension of enhanced subsidies for poor families with children. Essentially citing the need for more fiscal responsibility/deficit reduction, the John Kerry/Patty Murray amendment failed to pass with the needed 60 votes. There are many problems that I have with the failure to pass this bill, but what I think is most important to note is my belief that this is classism disguised as principle.

My belief is that the modern Republican party (and quite honestly the modern Democratic party) doesn't care about the underclass in America. Certainly a lot of their opposition also has to do with a general disdain for the Obama administration but I think it's easier for politicians to find a fake, yet logical-sounding reason (i.e. fiscal responsibility) to mask what they are really feeling (i.e. a disdain for all things poor).

This bill , if passed, would have impacted politicians or their families and friends in no way, shape or form. Their well-heeled friends and family have the connections to ensure that their children have summer jobs (ones that pay more than minimum wage).

The bill would have also provided subsidies for vulnerable families with children via the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Again, not a constituent who truly matters to politicians. These families are not going to financially contribute to their next campaign and conventional wisdom says that poor people don't vote anyway or vote against their best interest.

I don't know the solution to our broken American political system. I do know that even as a middle class person, I don't feel like my interests are always reflected by the people I have voted for who are supposed to represent them. Part of the problem is that the people who run for public office are already wealthy enough such that they can afford to take time off from their jobs without pay (assuming they are not already politicians) to campaign and they are connected enough with well-heeled folk to gather donations. These people are theoretically wealthy enough already that they can't possibly really understand what it is like for Americans to live day-to-day. Maybe when we have a political system where money doesn't rule the day (which will likely never happen) we'll start to get people in office who represent the real Joe and Jane Q. Public.

Joseph Stack, Politics and Celebrity

Celebrity is a crazy and arbitrary thing. Joseph Stack entered a realm of celebrity today when he crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin. Before today, the public at large knew nothing about Slack. His six-page suicide note details a man who has railed against big, corrupt government and taxation for nearly 30 years. His act has spurred (as of this writing) 10 Facebook groups, many of which position him as a hero.

But Slack offers an opportunity to look at the creation of celebrity. To paraphrase Chris Rojek, transgression is a tried and true route to acquire celebrity and Joseph Stack has become an overnight notorious celebrity-- at least for the short term. What appears to be a solo act of frustration with taxation has been co-opted into a treatise on all that is wrong with the way taxes and government work in our country. And many people, myself included, believe that there is something wrong with the way our government is run, but I believe it often boils down to the idea that as Americans we are lured by the concept of politician as celebrity, not who will do the best job per se.

Television forever changed the way we elect public officials. The overarching complaint most people had with Al Gore during his run as president was that he wasn't charismatic. What does that really have to do with whether or not he would be a good, effective leader? Barack Obama is certainly smart and charismatic but the jury is still out on how his presidency will be remembered. We've never had a truly unattractive president since the dawn of the TV age and we've also never had an obese president (although some of the Clinton Big Mac years got very close). So, in effect, we vote for the most popular one, who also sometimes happens to be the one with whom we'd most like to have a beer.

In a week, we will have forgotten all about this incident (if it even takes that long) but for now, Joseph Stack has become a celebrity and the face for the Tea Party movement to signify all that is wrong with government as people, particularly small business owners, decry the injustice of being "taxed twice." And we will continue to vote for the one who is most attractive and charismatic while continuing to get the same result while expecting something different -- which coincidentally is the definition of insanity.

New Blog: Joe the Plummer was Used, Used I Say!

Sam Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) has come to the realization that he was used by John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign. And in the vein of all attention-seeking fauxlebrities (I'm looking at you Kate Gosselin), he feels the need to "speak out."

There are two issues at play here. First, I can't imagine that he is vapid enough to just have come to the realization that he was merely a mascot for John McCain's campaign. But second, and perhaps more importantly, the general premise of his argument doesn't hold water. Had John McCain not "used" him, he wouldn't be a fauxlebrity and he would be just another guy trying to make it in tough economic times. So, to trash John McCain (and Sarah Palin) is disingenuous, at best.

Third, Joe the Plumber "speaking out" illuminates another issue we have with media and our cultural obsession with celebrity. Media reports on these seemingly inane stories for our mass consumption. Theoretically, the media is giving us what we want because if they reported it and no one watched or read or otherwise paid attention, they'd move on to something else, but we've never really been good at consuming what is good or right for us.

Collective Memory

Politicians and television talking heads, particularly right-leaning ones, have often talked about how things were so much better and simpler in times gone by. And while this Daily Show video lambastes Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, we're all a little guilty of mis-remembering events in our lives.  Cultural theorist Maurice Halbwachs gives us clues about how (and why) we think this were better than they actually are through his theory of collective memory.  Halbwachs was chiefly concerned with the ways in which we recount and mythologize the past.  He believed that the only way that past is made relevant for us is by social institutions (like the media) and collective actions of commemoration and festivals.

Even more disturbing is the opening speech at the Tea Party Convention given by former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo.  He believed that literacy tests as a prerequisite to being able to vote were a good thing.  What he fails to "remember" in his remembering how these literacy tests ensured that we had educated people voting is that blacks were denied all sorts of civil rights in addition to just being prohibited from voting.  Let's see... what could have possibly been happening to blacks when they were being denied the right to vote?  Umm, being routinely hosed down in the streets with high-powered hoses.  Oh yeah, another example is being lynched... and... one last one, having to endure a far inferior educational system (although schools have effectively been re-segregated thanks to differences in socio-economic status and "white flight" from urban schools).

Haiti is another example of collective memory.  This excellent essay remembers the facts of Haiti and why it is one of the poorest countries in the world -- not because Haitians are some kind of slackers, but because America (the very country now coming to its aid and trying to rewrite history) has had their foot on the necks of Haitians for decades.   

What we must work to do is remember events as they were and not as we'd like them to be. That is the best way for us to be more informed world citizens and not be told what to think by "the machine."