Ever since the campaign for the presidency, Republicans have been hurtling the socialism label around with reckless abandon. So let's break this down. And let's really not run away from the label.
First of all, because it seems to me that the right always needs an enemy, they quickly label people and positions with the most incendiary labels so we don't even think about the CONTENT of the positions being moved. I think our country is in too perilous a condition to be frightened by labels.
With that said, let's start with socialism and end with their other favorite bogeyman - homosexuals. Socialism. Am I supposed to go running and take cover with images of the Russian Revolution of 1919? I suppose I'm supposed to weep and wail with the prospect of losing my religion and losing the ability to be the top 1% of people keeping all of the wealth while others live in tent cities? Let's get something straight. After the unbridled capitalism present in the U.S. before the Great Depression, thank God for those "socialist" trends of creating a social safety net. Thank God for Social Security, Food Stamps, and protections for labor to organize. Because I'm not interested in having a bunch of old people who can't take care of themselves thrown out on the street because they can't even afford food; hungry people in general; and having wages moving towards a race to the bottom. Actually, this reminds me that I wish there was a stronger international labor movement so that we can no longer hold out workers in China or India as cheaper so we don't get jobs. They don't deserve to be paid so little, especially given the profits made from their labor. If this makes me a socialist, sue me!
Finally, let's discuss the other bogeyman, "homosexuals". Homosexuals are credited with everything from hampering other people's civil rights to creating the downfall of American society (let's not forget the cause of 9/11). If we are going to make real strides for women in the United States, and don't think that men won't be beneficiaries, we can't allow the alleged "threat" of gay marriage to get in the way. What is the right really afraid of - that women will stop saying "yeah I'll cook your dinner, raise your kids, and clean up after you." Perhaps women should. Then men would have to take real responsibility for themselves.
Ultimately, socialists and homosexuals are used to keep real progress from happening in the U.S. I'd prefer progress - non-legally sanctioned discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, etc. [remember that the Lilly Ledbetter Act just passed this year; a real social safety neck so that we can all heave a sigh of relief until this economy gets its legs back, and a kinder, gentler nation. We could start the kinder, gentler part of this vision with ending the scapegoating of queers and socialists . . .
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Black Women in the Radical Tradition Conference
I was fortunate to attend the Black Women in the Radical Tradition conference here in New York yesterday. And it's not just because my heart flutters every time I see Angela Davis. I have to say she's as brilliant as she ever was and wanted to convene it because she wants to pull anonymous Black women who have been committed to progressive causes out of anonymity, both in the U.S. and all over the world. Kudos to her!
I heard a wonderful presentation about Catholic Nuns organizing other Black sisters to provide education and a radical perspective on race to Black Catholics in their communities. This was a challenge because the South didn't support this work and the Vatican was less than warm to the idea themselves.
I learned about women such as Flo Kennedy who had a commitment not only to Black liberation, but also to the Women's Liberation movement. The scholar who presented on her pointed out that radical feminism began as a nexus of women's rights, Black liberation, and ooooooh, I forget what, but I was certainly thrilled to learn about this.
I also heard a presentation concerning home care workers here in New York City and the organizing they did before SEIU stepped in. It's amazing how the city government and the private agencies bounced them about in order not to bargain a contract! Yet, they continued on and they have been organized here for about 20 years.
Speakers were upfront about both being ecstatic about the change in the U.S. that electing Barack Obama represented; yet, questioning how we can move things further to a radical tradition and completely change what is going on in the U.S. It was refreshing to hear people say, outright, that capitalism is failing. I think that we see that with the banking crisis etc. We all need to think about what that means. Can we really continue societies based on a motive on unending greed and much for few?
Ultimately, I feel that it confirms my hopes for my own work - history from below and moving beyond, in all places and times, the regular titular heads. Many, particularly women, women of color, work hard to bring about important changes in their societies and hopefully many forums like this will be held to laud their work. Bravo Angela and Thank you!!
I heard a wonderful presentation about Catholic Nuns organizing other Black sisters to provide education and a radical perspective on race to Black Catholics in their communities. This was a challenge because the South didn't support this work and the Vatican was less than warm to the idea themselves.
I learned about women such as Flo Kennedy who had a commitment not only to Black liberation, but also to the Women's Liberation movement. The scholar who presented on her pointed out that radical feminism began as a nexus of women's rights, Black liberation, and ooooooh, I forget what, but I was certainly thrilled to learn about this.
I also heard a presentation concerning home care workers here in New York City and the organizing they did before SEIU stepped in. It's amazing how the city government and the private agencies bounced them about in order not to bargain a contract! Yet, they continued on and they have been organized here for about 20 years.
Speakers were upfront about both being ecstatic about the change in the U.S. that electing Barack Obama represented; yet, questioning how we can move things further to a radical tradition and completely change what is going on in the U.S. It was refreshing to hear people say, outright, that capitalism is failing. I think that we see that with the banking crisis etc. We all need to think about what that means. Can we really continue societies based on a motive on unending greed and much for few?
Ultimately, I feel that it confirms my hopes for my own work - history from below and moving beyond, in all places and times, the regular titular heads. Many, particularly women, women of color, work hard to bring about important changes in their societies and hopefully many forums like this will be held to laud their work. Bravo Angela and Thank you!!
Friday, February 6, 2009
The recession, Women, and the job market
First, check out this link . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
This raised three clear issues for me - (1) the article clearly states that women are now forced to work from their homes given the state of the economy; (2) that men are not assuming more of the DAILY WORK it needs to keep a household going although they do not have a job; and (3) that the pay gap is still real.
I have to say that I get seriously irritated when we use statistics about White women and portray that to be the state of women all of the time. Admittedly, I haven't done much research in American history, but I do know this - that Black women often took up doing the laundry or cooking for other people because they were jobs they could do in their homes. Why did they do this? Because they could have their children near them as they worked and to avoid sexual harassment. Even though slavery had ended (and I'm talking well into the 20th century . . . to this very day), Black women were often sexually harassed by "the man of the house" and they would then catch flack from the "lady of the house" for sexual advances they did not seek out. So to deal with this, Black women stopped doing work as domestics in other peoples' homes and would take in the laundry or do cooking for others. I suppose White women can join the rest of us then.
Secondly, how ridiculous is it that when women are unemployed, we have to look for our jobs and make sure everyone has their emotional and physical needs met. I do see this as an opportunity to move something about sexism here. Honestly, looking for a job is not necessarily an eight hour affair. Men need to take on these domestic responsibilities, particularly if women are the ones who are taking home the bacon. Perhaps they could learn to fry it up in the pan. How about making sure the kids needs are met after school? How about making sure that everything is nice, neat, and clean by the time their spouses are finished with their workday. Perhaps NOW we will understand that working at home is work.
Finally, the pay gap. The statistics on U.S. educational achivement grow dimmer and dimmer everyday. Yet, this is a field that is predominantly female and is desperately underpaid. While we're trying to provide economic stimulus, perhaps now is the time to seriously boost the pay for important fields such as teachers. There would be far more medical mistakes if NURSES, who are predominantly female, did not pick up the slack for the male doctors they work with. How about a major pay adjustment for those women? How about putting more money in nursing schools so that we have more direct health care providers for an aging, more sickly population.
I would like to see not only the economy stimulated, but sexism stimulated out of our social and economic structure.
This raised three clear issues for me - (1) the article clearly states that women are now forced to work from their homes given the state of the economy; (2) that men are not assuming more of the DAILY WORK it needs to keep a household going although they do not have a job; and (3) that the pay gap is still real.
I have to say that I get seriously irritated when we use statistics about White women and portray that to be the state of women all of the time. Admittedly, I haven't done much research in American history, but I do know this - that Black women often took up doing the laundry or cooking for other people because they were jobs they could do in their homes. Why did they do this? Because they could have their children near them as they worked and to avoid sexual harassment. Even though slavery had ended (and I'm talking well into the 20th century . . . to this very day), Black women were often sexually harassed by "the man of the house" and they would then catch flack from the "lady of the house" for sexual advances they did not seek out. So to deal with this, Black women stopped doing work as domestics in other peoples' homes and would take in the laundry or do cooking for others. I suppose White women can join the rest of us then.
Secondly, how ridiculous is it that when women are unemployed, we have to look for our jobs and make sure everyone has their emotional and physical needs met. I do see this as an opportunity to move something about sexism here. Honestly, looking for a job is not necessarily an eight hour affair. Men need to take on these domestic responsibilities, particularly if women are the ones who are taking home the bacon. Perhaps they could learn to fry it up in the pan. How about making sure the kids needs are met after school? How about making sure that everything is nice, neat, and clean by the time their spouses are finished with their workday. Perhaps NOW we will understand that working at home is work.
Finally, the pay gap. The statistics on U.S. educational achivement grow dimmer and dimmer everyday. Yet, this is a field that is predominantly female and is desperately underpaid. While we're trying to provide economic stimulus, perhaps now is the time to seriously boost the pay for important fields such as teachers. There would be far more medical mistakes if NURSES, who are predominantly female, did not pick up the slack for the male doctors they work with. How about a major pay adjustment for those women? How about putting more money in nursing schools so that we have more direct health care providers for an aging, more sickly population.
I would like to see not only the economy stimulated, but sexism stimulated out of our social and economic structure.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Stimulus
I have to say I admire President Obama. He has stunning political skills. I am not surprised, just in awe. So while he has to make nice with Republicans, I can offer this critique of our dear Republican party.
Now that our country is a wreck and is falling off of the economic cliff, the Republicans want to critique government spending and tax cuts. None of this is new, but from where have these new balls been found? Where were they when President Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Where were they when these supplemental budgets for massive amounts of money with absolutely no information detailing what for, in the name of national security, were being passed? Did they have any questions about the effect of tax cuts and how it actually cut revenue to the federal government while we were fighting two wars? Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen or heard. So now we have to spend like the wind to get people employed again, ironically, to collect further tax income needed desperately for the government to continue to function.
Tax cuts? Are they serious? Weren't tax cuts responsible for making sure we are in this deficit in the first place? If I recall correctly, it was President Clinton (remember, way back when) who put the country back in a budget surplus? Remember that it was Republicans who gave that surplus money away in tax cuts and then started spending more than they took in because of a war that had nothing to do with the attack on this country? If I recall correctly, while the wealthy were getting tax cuts, none of this trickled down to anyone else because pay was stagnant and working poor and poor people actually had to take multiple jobs to make ends meet. And we want to prescribe TAX CUTS for the solution to this problem? Where have they been for the past eight years?
I honestly think that Michael Steele and the rest of his brigands need to really rethink their orthodoxies. It makes no sense to have them if they do not correspond to what the country needs. Frankly, I would be willing to pay much more in taxes if I could have non-employer dependent health insurance, decent schooling for my son, and a security net so that if I lose my job in May, I would be alright. They can take their tax cuts and stuff it for all I care.
But then again, it's not my political life on the line.
Now that our country is a wreck and is falling off of the economic cliff, the Republicans want to critique government spending and tax cuts. None of this is new, but from where have these new balls been found? Where were they when President Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Where were they when these supplemental budgets for massive amounts of money with absolutely no information detailing what for, in the name of national security, were being passed? Did they have any questions about the effect of tax cuts and how it actually cut revenue to the federal government while we were fighting two wars? Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen or heard. So now we have to spend like the wind to get people employed again, ironically, to collect further tax income needed desperately for the government to continue to function.
Tax cuts? Are they serious? Weren't tax cuts responsible for making sure we are in this deficit in the first place? If I recall correctly, it was President Clinton (remember, way back when) who put the country back in a budget surplus? Remember that it was Republicans who gave that surplus money away in tax cuts and then started spending more than they took in because of a war that had nothing to do with the attack on this country? If I recall correctly, while the wealthy were getting tax cuts, none of this trickled down to anyone else because pay was stagnant and working poor and poor people actually had to take multiple jobs to make ends meet. And we want to prescribe TAX CUTS for the solution to this problem? Where have they been for the past eight years?
I honestly think that Michael Steele and the rest of his brigands need to really rethink their orthodoxies. It makes no sense to have them if they do not correspond to what the country needs. Frankly, I would be willing to pay much more in taxes if I could have non-employer dependent health insurance, decent schooling for my son, and a security net so that if I lose my job in May, I would be alright. They can take their tax cuts and stuff it for all I care.
But then again, it's not my political life on the line.
Friday, January 23, 2009
It's a little early for Christmas 2009 greetings, but
I am DYING to know what the Obama holiday card will say. Granted, much could happen in this year, but let me give it a try:
Barack, Malia, Sasha and I wish you all Happy Holidays, be it Winter Solstice, Ramadan, Channukah, Christmas, and the New Year. We've certainly had a busy year. As you may have heard, we moved from Chicago to Washington, D.C. We are enjoying our new digs. I have to say it's much easier to handle with the staff.
There was a little party for the start of Barack's new job. The girls hosted Miley Sirus and the Jonas Brothers for themselves and a few others of their age. A few people came to witness his taking of the oath. OK, possibly a couple of million. Clearly, this wasn't going to be an indoor ceremony and it was frigid out, but there's nothing like starting a new job with a few good friends! In the event that we even briefly missed Chicago, it is clear that we brought the weather with us.
Joe and Jill have been invaluable to helping our transition here, even after Jill blabbed to Oprah about Joe's choice for VP or Secretary of State in the new administration. Watch out when the Biden's get excited!
Barack is exhausted and hoping for a couple of days off around Christmas. I have to say that it's really challenging for him to work from home because the job is always there. I have enjoyed working on behalf of military families and seeing to the girls' transition to their new school and city. I have to say that they've handled this in stride. Of course the new dog is a big hit with them. I even think that they understand the level of responsibility they have to take for it. I also must confess that it's about time Barack has brought in an income higher than mine!
We wish you the best for the new year!
With much love,
The Obama family
Barack, Malia, Sasha and I wish you all Happy Holidays, be it Winter Solstice, Ramadan, Channukah, Christmas, and the New Year. We've certainly had a busy year. As you may have heard, we moved from Chicago to Washington, D.C. We are enjoying our new digs. I have to say it's much easier to handle with the staff.
There was a little party for the start of Barack's new job. The girls hosted Miley Sirus and the Jonas Brothers for themselves and a few others of their age. A few people came to witness his taking of the oath. OK, possibly a couple of million. Clearly, this wasn't going to be an indoor ceremony and it was frigid out, but there's nothing like starting a new job with a few good friends! In the event that we even briefly missed Chicago, it is clear that we brought the weather with us.
Joe and Jill have been invaluable to helping our transition here, even after Jill blabbed to Oprah about Joe's choice for VP or Secretary of State in the new administration. Watch out when the Biden's get excited!
Barack is exhausted and hoping for a couple of days off around Christmas. I have to say that it's really challenging for him to work from home because the job is always there. I have enjoyed working on behalf of military families and seeing to the girls' transition to their new school and city. I have to say that they've handled this in stride. Of course the new dog is a big hit with them. I even think that they understand the level of responsibility they have to take for it. I also must confess that it's about time Barack has brought in an income higher than mine!
We wish you the best for the new year!
With much love,
The Obama family
Inauguration - Underreported
I was fortunate enough to drag my son and partner to Washington, D.C. to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama. I must say that I still have to pinch myself when I hear President Obama. I still have to wonder why he wanted this job at this time. I must admit that I can't think of a single other person who would be better at this job at this time.
However, I do want to clarify a couple of things that seem to have been underreported in the press. The first was the ENORMOUS number of Black people who attended the inauguration. We know that Washington, D.C. has the reputation of being Chocolate City because of its large Black population (and I certainly was one of them for many years). However, outside of being in Jamaica, I have to say that in the United States, I have NEVER seen so many Black people in one place in my life. Really. There were definitely people of other races, but overwhelmingly, the crowd was Black.
Secondly, the crowd booed, very loudly to boot, whenever the images of either of the former Bush presidents and Dick Cheney appeared on the jumbotron. There is no doubt that many American people were ready for the Bush era to end. It wasn't a mere rumble. It was loud and clear.
Finally, I LOVED Aretha Franklin's hat. It rocked! And with that, know that I'm still smoking on the bong of hope!
However, I do want to clarify a couple of things that seem to have been underreported in the press. The first was the ENORMOUS number of Black people who attended the inauguration. We know that Washington, D.C. has the reputation of being Chocolate City because of its large Black population (and I certainly was one of them for many years). However, outside of being in Jamaica, I have to say that in the United States, I have NEVER seen so many Black people in one place in my life. Really. There were definitely people of other races, but overwhelmingly, the crowd was Black.
Secondly, the crowd booed, very loudly to boot, whenever the images of either of the former Bush presidents and Dick Cheney appeared on the jumbotron. There is no doubt that many American people were ready for the Bush era to end. It wasn't a mere rumble. It was loud and clear.
Finally, I LOVED Aretha Franklin's hat. It rocked! And with that, know that I'm still smoking on the bong of hope!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
And what of the Republicans?
First, do read this editorial from today's Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110403872.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I find the need for Republicans to move back to a particular knee jerk orthodoxy about lower taxes, free markets, and smaller government to be utterly absurd in this particular climate. In a time where people are losing their jobs, where government has failed to protect them against the problems of the free market, and where we will actually have to spend money to dig us out of our domestic and international crises, why resort to such inflexible orthodoxes?
I've always been a fan of Keynesian economics, using the government to provide a safety net, etc. for its citizens. But if we recall correctly, it was FDR who spent to get this country out of the Great Depression. Social Security was started so that the old and disabled could have income and participate in the marketplace. He spent money he didn't have to create jobs so that people could rebuild this country, literally through public works, and create a tax stream so that the government could do more for the people.
How will tax cuts, less oversight of many industries, and a failure to support new industries (i.e. green industries) actually be helpful to getting the United States in better shape, particularly while we are at war with two countries? Is the Republican party that out of touch? It seems that a majority of the American electorate has, for now, rejected these sorts of solutions for our nation's ills and if promoting these ideas is the only way that the Republicans can see their way out, may they stay in the wilderness for good.
I do agree with them about one thing, particularly as of last night: I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!
I find the need for Republicans to move back to a particular knee jerk orthodoxy about lower taxes, free markets, and smaller government to be utterly absurd in this particular climate. In a time where people are losing their jobs, where government has failed to protect them against the problems of the free market, and where we will actually have to spend money to dig us out of our domestic and international crises, why resort to such inflexible orthodoxes?
I've always been a fan of Keynesian economics, using the government to provide a safety net, etc. for its citizens. But if we recall correctly, it was FDR who spent to get this country out of the Great Depression. Social Security was started so that the old and disabled could have income and participate in the marketplace. He spent money he didn't have to create jobs so that people could rebuild this country, literally through public works, and create a tax stream so that the government could do more for the people.
How will tax cuts, less oversight of many industries, and a failure to support new industries (i.e. green industries) actually be helpful to getting the United States in better shape, particularly while we are at war with two countries? Is the Republican party that out of touch? It seems that a majority of the American electorate has, for now, rejected these sorts of solutions for our nation's ills and if promoting these ideas is the only way that the Republicans can see their way out, may they stay in the wilderness for good.
I do agree with them about one thing, particularly as of last night: I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
