The Gulf, Other Environmental Disasters, and "Big Government"

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been heartbreaking at best. I, an avid news junkie, have had a hard time watching this story unfold. The combination of this country's ravenous desire for oil, outright greed, and lack of consideration for ecosystems is enough to make one both figuratively and literally sick (the people working to clean up the coasts are becoming ill, as if this wasn't bad enough!). I am also rooting for President Obama as the guy in charge of all of this, but he must do more.

First, I must say that President Obama needs to walk and chew gum. What do I mean? So much of what we hear about is how they are going to "plug the hole." This is critical
because we cannot continue having thousands of gallons of oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, particularly as we are in hurricane season. However, we also must aggressively try to stop having the oil come on shore and start immediately cleaning up any spaces where oil has come ashore. There are marshes where there is no sign of life - Anderson Cooper reported that there were not even BUGS in the air.
This is frightening and much more resource must be devoted to keeping the oil from coming to shore and cleaning up the areas where oil has come ashore. BP must hire all the hands necessary and aggressively clean up. No penny pinching. No watching the profit. They don't deserve profit. They deserve to make right with the residents of Southern Louisiana, Mississippi, and other Gulf states.

I actually agree with many critics that the government needs to set up a command center. This would coordinate the activities between government agencies and between private industry and the government. All orders about how to proceed would be issued from here. If for no other reason, the optics would finally look like the government was in charge.

Second, I can only say we reap what we sow. What do I mean? Here is my longer view - ever since Ronald Reagan's administration, Americans have complained about too many taxes and too large a government. The Tea Party is the most recent incarnation of this mantra, but there are implications for this. Cut taxes, that means there is not enough income for the services that government provides. In the last five years, how many problems has this country faced? Spinach and peppers that were contaminated with salmonella (yeah, we dramatically cut funding for the FDA), drugs that killed Americans (see the same agency), the levees in New Orleans were not properly built and the marsh land that historically surrounded New Orleans now held housing and there was no natural or human-created barrier for Katrina. Never mind the two mine accidents that have happened where miners lost their lives. All of this has serious implications for our environment.

What's my point . . . when we shrink the size of government and refuse to collect taxes to fund it, it handicaps the government's ability to respond to problems. The government does not have enough labs to test water samples. The government does not have experts to think through solving this problem. The government does not have enough people hired to clean up the disaster. As a result, it is entirely too dependent on industry to handle this. Hell, things were so bad for government workers that they were sleeping with and receiving gifts from oil industry executives. This is what happens when we have lower taxes and smaller government.



The only disaster I haven't mentioned was the financial meltdown. However, all of these events might have been prevented with robust government that was properly staffed and kept independent. The Tea Partiers' noise must stop. Given all of the challenges in this country, this is not the time for cutting back government. It is a time for shared sacrifice. I would be down for tax increases that allowed government to do this important work of regulating industry and keeping us safe and secure (as well as educating our kids!). Capitalism needs oversight - unfortunately greed has really undermined any ability for me to trust any industry. I said it before and I'll say it again, we are reaping what we are sowing. Just sayin'.

Armageddon and Health Care

Dear John (Boehner):

I never thought I would be writing one of these letters, but here I go. I was raised as a card carrying Evangelical Protestant and took the concern you had about the health care bill causing Armageddon very seriously. Perhaps too seriously for many . . . I decided to watch for Armageddon for 30 days because of your statement. You can check out the history of this @michelledionne on Twitter if you would like, dear. A man of your stature should know about these things, right?

I have to say I was sorely disappointed. Brilliant day after brilliant day passed. I still had health care. I heard nothing from anyone who didn't have health care. My friends still had health care. My mother still has Medicare (yep, she's retired). There were no jack booted thugs in the streets of New York City (are we too socialist?). No volcano ash. No six headed serpent. No rapture. No nothing as predicted by the Biblical Book of Revelations.

Honey, what went so wrong? How could I have soured on you so? How could you have broken your word? Could this have been merely political flourish?

I take away three lessons from this and I hope you take away the same. Here are my recommendations for the future as I stop taking what you say as one of the senior Republicans so seriously:

1. Don't organize political fights on the basis of painful emotion (anger counts). Now, I'm not a big fan of Ronnie, but Reagan was really on to something with his "new morning in America" (unfortunately, it wasn't so new for me). That hopey changey stuff that Obama campaigned on worked because people want something to believe in, not continual kvetching (excuse my mixed religious/cultural terminology). Not doing something because it would cause the end of the world, while exciting for Tea Party participants, does not exactly, well, light our fires.

2. Sometimes you have to lead public opinion as opposed to following it. Really did you want to allow health insurance companies to deny anyone coverage? I'm sure if we took a poll on this schnookums that the American public would overwhelmingly support provisions like this. Do you really think insurance companies should be able to place caps on care over the course of your lifetime? I know, no matter your ideological leanings, that you couldn't politically vote for that! But you know what, the rest of us "socialists" really didn't do a good job getting that part of the message out. But you should want to bring your constituents around to these positions and that couldn't be hard work!

3. Don't promise things above your pay grade like Armageddon, or alternatively, make sure that your critiques are actually based in fact. Really, isn't God (as I learned it) responsible for deciding when Armageddon should come? Are there really death panels in this bill (I haven't heard of grandparents being killed by whoever since the bill passed!). If you stick with real facts (less government regulation, more market doing it's thing (although I don't agree with this)), you might have more mojo next time.

And sweetheart, next time is already here . . . it's the financial reform bill. I would keep Armageddon out of it. Really. Just sayin'.

Our futures will now be delinked. I don't know what else to say. I can only wish you the best.

Hoping for the best,

Michelle

The News Coverage of Disasters Concerning People of African Heritage

Allow me this tongue in cheek and very cynical summary of how Hurricane Katrina and Haiti have been covered by the press (except for Michel Martin of NPR's Tell me More . . . but I'll say more about that later):



1. What the disaster is - this always requires a panicked voice conveying the urgency of the matter with language and physical carriage as well. A 7.0 magnitude earth quake just hit Port-au-Prince, Haiti and the city has just been devastated. We don't have a death count right now, but it could be in the hundreds of thousands!

2. Who is involved - To quote Wolf Blitzer of CNN: "They are very poor and very Black."

3. More panic - We have to help. Enter Great White Hope from stage right, the face of wealthy Western nations who will fix the problem, ease their guilt, and burnish their antiracist credentials.



4. Now that signs of life start to appear, the natives start looting - Enter Crazy Black People from stage left. Sane people would never loot when they were hungry! (sarcasm on my part). This is also the point where Pat Robertson always has to blame the natives for their predicament because they angered God (this applies to White people as well - or those who are nothing like him, i.e. Godlike).



5. How to proceed from here - A number of experts on place-of-the-moment from the West (read Great White Hope) appearing on evening news shows to discuss how to fix the problem. Every once in a while we can allow an expert from the place-of-the-moment, but we certainly can't get carried away . . . what do they know anyway and they moved!

6. A series of stories appear discussing the level of corruption in the place-of-the-moment's government (another version of the Crazy Black People narrative).



7. Disaster fades from the press' imagination (except for Anderson Cooper's - not a criticism of Cooper). Exit rear.

Allow me to take my tongue out of my cheek and really say that the challenge the press faces with covering these stories is that they are solely focused in the here and now because, well, news is new, and history is, well, old, and cannot be put into a nice neat soundbite about the present. However, this leads to highly decontextualized coverage that fails to grapple with the long-term structural challenges in these places that compounded the natural disasters long before the disasters occurred.



What does this mean? Michel Martin of NPR, an exception in her coverage of the earthquake, did a lovely segment on her show discussing Pat Robertson's comment. It inserted the history of Haiti. It makes you wonder if most of the press realizes that people of African heritage have histories, unique histories of their own, that very much color how things look in the present. She actually discussed the 1789 Haitian Revolution! Soooo, Haitians did not make a pact with the devil (we all realized that this was absurd). Why was this the case? Because African-heritage people revolted against the institution of slavery. Yes, Haitians were enslaved and got rid not only of that institution, but also broke their colonial shackles, soon after the American Revolution. While the U.S. received diplomatic recognition and economic trading opportunities throughout the Atlantic World while the British nursed their sores, the Haitians were shunned diplomatically and economically and the French (under Bonaparte, his first defeat before Waterloo) demanded repayment for their lost property (slaves). So, a nation that had nothing now had a debt. Wow . . . that might impact how government forms and how a nation builds itself, right? But this is old. Not news.



Haiti isn't my historical specialty. Neither, frankly, is the U.S. in general or New Orleans in particular. But a little bit of old information can shift the weird tinge of the coverage about these events greatly. Just sayin'.

Child Molestation and the Catholic Church

Let me come out first: I am a card carrying, church going Catholic. I sing in my church's choir, my son goes to the children's liturgy readings. I joined the church after the first U.S. wave of accusations about child sexual abuse came to light and the church had to grapple with that. I entered into this institution with my eyes wide open. And now another wave of accusations about child sexual abuse is coursing through the church in Wisconsin, USA, Ireland, and in Germany under the current Pontiff's watch no less.



Like anyone else, I am sickened that a priest would use his position of authority and power to force young people to have sex with them. For me, this issue is not about chastity. It is about how young people are taken advantage of when they are with a person of power and how they cannot protect themselves and their will is overcome by someone simply because they are a child. It is about the underbelly of how young people are consistently and systematically mistreated because they are young people.

The sexual abuse scandal is also about other forms of oppression too - the oppression of gay people in our societies and sexism (you knew I would have to discuss sexism, didn't you?). Let's start with gay oppression. The response of the Vatican to these scandals was to screen people interested in becoming priests for whether they are gay and make sure that they did not serve in the priesthood. I think, for many, the horror of gay sex in the midst of child abuse was more than they could stand. However, isn't gay sex the red herring? Ultimately, what the Vatican's response suggests is that gay people are perverts who would rather, dare I say prefer, to sleep with young people. And no other myth could be further from the truth. The problem isn't gay people, but people who take undue advantage of children. Some heterosexual men do the same thing, namely take undue advantage of young females.

Which brings me to the issue of sexism and child sexual abuse. Every once in a while, amongst the reports of adults who had been molested at the hands of priests, a woman discusses her abuse. Never is much attention paid to it, it just becomes another narrative, but understand that what is more important are the boys, now men, who were targeted by priests. This is unfortunate because it suggests that it would be less traumatic for girls to be the victims of sexual predation from grown men, particularly men with this level of authority.

One component of sexism is that the experiences of girls and women are trivialized and so our experiences do not matter in the scheme of larger narratives. Hence, the abuse that many endured as young girls and some women is not significant. However, more troubling is the assumption, under sexism, that girls and women are supposed to be the target of men's sexual predilections, no matter their age. Girls, and then women, live with the assumption that they will be the targets of men in a sexual manner for their entire lives. Boys are not socialized with the same presumption. Boys, and then men, are not supposed to be the targeted, but the ones who target. Here lies the revulsion about priests who abuse boys. It is that these priests violate the norms of sexism. Hence, the issue of all young people who have been targeted by sexual abuse initiated by priests is overlooked.

The societies in which the Catholic Church is ensconced must check their revulsions to gay sex if real progress is going to be made against priests molesting children. Sexist assumptions that any child, particularly females, are supposed to put up with men's sexual needs in brutal ways must be dismantled. Sexism, as an organizing construct for any society must be dismantled. Otherwise, at some point, what is good for the goose becomes good for the gander. If girls are to be targeted for sex abuse as a norm, at some point, that norm also ends up being a norm for boys. Both boys and girls have their lives significantly altered in a myriad of ways when adults cannot resist using them as sexual playthings. The Church must stand against all sorts sexism and molestation and make sure their incoming priests are able to stay away from young children in manners that are sexually compromising - perhaps the real check priests should endure is an examination of their willingness to uphold sexism. Dismantling sexism in the Catholic Church would have real large repercussions; however, if doing so would protect young people, wouldn't it be worth it?

There is a lesson for other faiths as well - the Catholic Church gets caught in this because it is the only religious organization that has such a prolific and central bureaucracy and governance structure. Its record keeping is vast and spans many centuries. Perhaps this is the only reason why other faiths have not been ensnared with issues concerning child sexual abuse (except for extremist Mormons). I know I have seen, let me say, odd behaviors in a Protestant church. I know there must be tales of girls and boys molested in other faiths. It will not do to suggest that Catholic priests have a lock on perversion. This also functions as a red herring for the real issue - how to we as a society make sure that young people are safe in front of all adults they come in contact with. Making sure sexism is not an organizing structure in societies would keep all young people safe. Just sayin'.

The Spurnned Wife

First, read this piece published by Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947305,00.html

There are two things I want to say about the spurned political/sports/whomever wife . . . way to go Jenny and where is the word SEXISM in all of this?

I whole heartedly agree with Time's portrayal of Jenny Sanford.

She has been the face of eloquence and poise during such an emotionally bruising point in her life. She has been able to be public without too much detail, and think well about not only her children, but her philandering Christian husband. Bravo.

However, aside from taking on infidelity with poise, I think the media coverage of any couple's infidelity completely misses a discussion about sexism and how far we have to go. For example, let's figure out to be a Tiger . . .

Apparently, you go to the gym, train, go to the golf course, train, travel to tournament, let off some steam (if you know what I mean), return to wife and children, repeat. However, what is missed in this scenario is that there is someone laboring, unpaid in our philanderers' absence. There tends to be a woman who is raising the children and keeping track of what is going on in the household to make sure that he can govern or play sports (or work in a law firm, work in a hospital, build buildings, teach kids, and on it goes). The "public" spouse need not bother their pretty little heads with what preoccupies the rest of us for most of the day - who will pick up Junior from school; Junior needs to eat dinner by 5 to make sure he's not a raving maniac . . . what should I cook that he and hubby like; oh dear, Schnookums is bringing over a pal from the office and the housekeeper isn't here today . . . I have to clean; better get Junior to bed so he is ready to learn in the morning; is the homework done; I hope he doesn't feel like making love, I'm exhausted! You get the point.

Bottom line: the philanderers are taking advantage of someone else's time and hard work to enjoy their lives to the max. Here is the sexism - because they are men, they are entitled to their wives' labor. Of course there's the emotional betrayal . . . after all, they swore in front of God,the State, family, and friends that they would be true to their spouses forever. However, these women often hold another job or have given up careers; contributions to their IRAs, pensions, social security funds; their own wealth; and now their emotional security after working their asses off for these men. How much would it cost for them to replace this lost labor? Perhaps this is what Tiger is dealing with this week in addition to his wife's wrath.

It is this entitlement that burns me (I suspect these wives as well). Women don't get socialized to expect this level of entitlement . . . indeed, we don't expect to demand anything in return for the labor we put into our relationships. Ultimately, perhaps THIS is what these men have to apologize for; however, shifting the assumption of entitlement is harder work . . . work they better start doing. And that's why I admire Jenny Sanford - she effectively told her husband he is not entitled to anything of hers anymore. And, in spite of the fact that I suspect she wouldn't identify as feminist, that is the feminist morality tale.

Obama and Nobel

I can't help but to weigh in on this. In the wake of the criticism of President Obama winning this award from both the U.S. right and left, perhaps we all need to take a big step back with a deep breath. This is hardly meant to diminish other very worthy candidates for this year's peace prize; however, I think, while surprising, the award make sense. It makes sense for two reasons: words matter; and we need hope to change.

Let's start with the fact that words matter. What happens when someone calls you a liar, a racist, a terrorist? Yeah, those words hurt. Recall that 8 years ago, we had a President and Administration that set up the "axis of evil." We officially designated Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as countries that export and support terrorists and so we were no longer talking to them. That was helpful (I do hope you detect sarcasm in that statement).

Further, we took a policy that U.S. interests are the only interests that mattered in the world and so for foreign policy purposes, we would go it alone. That's right, the cowboy was back in town. This was personified by John Bolton who was our enthusiastic representative as ambassador to the United Nations.
Can you imagine what this policy would look like if you were trying to impart it to young children - "Johnny, the only games we play are the ones you want sweetheart. It doesn't matter what your friends would like to do." We pulled out of the climate change agreement negotiated in Kyoto as a result of this stance and took many other positions on the world stage. Another helpful foreign policy direction brought to you by the 43rd President of the United States.

Suffice it to say that these words POISONED the international atmosphere and impaired our ability to speak with, negotiate, or discuss policy problems with anyone but friends, such as they were. This position left us very isolated and with little influence in the world. Enter U.S. President number 44 and he says we're going to talk to you. Wow! No more axis of evil? No more my way or the high way? I don't know if we can appreciate enough what openings this brought to the international community. Iran actually told us they had enough nuclear material for a missile (not that they stopped developing weapons, but they SPOKE to us, an important condition for NEGOTIATING - you can't negotiate if you're not talking!); we have a warmer relationship with Cuba; things are warming up with Russia . . . this is a new day on the international front and we in the United States probably can't appreciate this enough because we're mired in health care. Words matter.

Did someone mention health care? Ah yes, which brings me to my second point - hope matters. Remember how pollyanna people thought this was during the campaign - all lofty words, no action, hope, schmope! No one changes things from a hopeless position. Let me repeat that - you cannot change things if you are hopeless. You have to hope that things will be better so you take the actions needed to make it happen. Health care is a doozy because of all of the entrenched interests - we all know them well. You have to be hopeful to take on the insurance companies, the doctors, the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies, and the list goes on. The opposition hopes that we'll become hopeless and let the issue die. We can't become hopeless if change in health care is going to happen. This applies to many other issues as well - if GLBTQ people are to attain rights in the states and across the country, there is no place for hopelessness. If we hope for change in an issue as daunting as cleaning up our environment, there is no place for hopelessness. If, to tackle the issue raised by Time Magazine this week, women are to improve the way sexism impacts their daily lives, there is no place for hopelessness.

There are many who would like convince us that exhortations such as "hope" are empty words. To them, and to all of the discouraged, I say that words matter. And hope is as important a word as any of them! Congratulations President Barack Hussein Obama - I'll read your winning the Nobel as the first step in worldwide change and remain hopeful with you!

The R Word

With the furor of the town halls around health care, shouting traitor whenever Obama's name was mentioned during the campaign, the increased hate crimes, and finally, the elevated number of death threats against President Obama, there has been some explicit naming of the r word, yes, racism, as a factor in this behavior. The right wing (some would argue fringe) insists racism is not the primary culprit, it is just real upset about Obama's policies. After all, racism became less of a factor the minute the U.S. elected Obama.

Enter Jimmy Carter, stage right. Last night he tells Brian Williams that he thinks that, as a Southern White Man who is familiar with the thought processes around racism, racism is at the core of the animosity being displayed.

I know this will surprise you, but I agree with President Carter. However, I want to discuss how the right tries to diffuse the issue, because their noise is confusing, at best. My poster boy for these conversations (if they really could be called that) is an exchange I saw last night on Anderson Cooper's show between Mark Williams (one of the primary organizers of the Tea Parties) and Roland Martin.

What concerns me is that when members of a target group points out a pattern of behavior that is racist, sexist, homophobic, and the list goes on, they are accused of being racist, sexist, etc. Why? Because people who are trying to handle race (I'm not sure about handling) don't talk about race at all. Those of you who engage in race baiting need racism because you would not be able to earn your keep. Then the comparison is made between the person pointing out the racist behavior and either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. When specific instances of racist behavior are listed that are not explicit, e.g. the use of the N-word or something like that, then Black people are just looking too hard for racism which no longer exists. Hence, it is the Black/Latino/group of the month who is really racist. By the way, racist speech is protected by the first amendment!

Well well! I guess women wouldn't be raped if we didn't walk outside either. My point is that they try to evade the charge of racism by blaming the victim (stop looking for it and then it won't exist). By the way, whether or not you agree with them, the reason that Sharpton and Jackson are such targets around race is because they dare to take a stand against it and call it when it is seen. Finally, I thought there was some understanding that not all incidents of racism require explicit insults invoking race, that much more subtle behaviors can certainly have a racist impact, hence institutionalized racism. Our own constitution supports that position to a limited extent.

My suspicion is that opponents feel shut down when they are told their behaviors are racist. They go on the attack to deflect that issue. I must say, it does not make sense to let the non-target group define what is racist, sexist, etc. because they feel too bad if their behavior is implicated - why would you want to feel that bad? It's easier to pretend it doesn't exist. I don't think the discussion of racism in the policy context is done with the aim of shutting down dissent. Indeed, as many on the right do, one criticism about the policies being implemented is the growing size of the federal budget; what is the role we want government to play, etc. While I don't agree with their positions, we need to have these discussions to continue a thriving democracy. This is doable without pictures of Obama as a witch doctor, scrimmaging about his place of birth, and other questionable attacks.

Ultimately, the spate of name calling, etc. does more to shut down the conversation than to reach consensus. In order to have real discussions with each other as Americans, we should avoid name-calling, even if that speech is constitutionally protected.

There's my attempt at civility and the r word!