I'm a obsessive poll checker, but tonight is worse than usual...probably because its Ohio's turn. Who will it be, Obama or Clinton? And by how large or small of a margin? McCain is now officially the Republican candidate for president. I don't even know what to think about that , I'm not even sure I want to try to think about what that could mean for the United States. Just the mention of his name paints a terrifying ( and probably over-exaggerated ) picture in my head of massive anti-gay laws, the eventual (McCain is supposedly pro choice but I'm a cynic ) shut down of abortion clinics and women's health centers, a 100 year war in which we ultimately loose in every way possible, the intensive policing of our borders, the terrorist like surveillance of anyone who resembles A Terrorist, abstinence only education, the consequent rise of teenage pregnancy, STIs, the return of the AIDS epidemic, and massive amounts of back alley way abortions. Not to mention the eventual demise of the United States as we know it. Okay,yes, I know. Its all a bit melodramatic...I cant help it, my feminist critical readings prof. is having us read The Parable of the Talents by Octavia E. Butler (its science fiction and it resembles what I just described.) Anyways.
Onto more fun things. I would like to respond to a great post that was brought to my attention. To preface what I'm going to write, I am all for cynicism. I understand that all of the candidates are a little silly at times...especially Senator Clinton (my personal opinion). I don't particularly trust any politicians as I think that they are for the most part slime balls with money. Whats worse, they're usually white, MALE slime balls with money (backed by more white male slime balls with money). However, taking into consideration the day and age that we live in, one that's filled with all kinds of despair, and pain, poverty, sickness, epidemics, genocides, human trafficking, threats of war, bombs being dropped, kids being shot, campuses being shot up, clinics being bombed, lives being ruined by debt, terror in many many forms, governmental deceit and lawlessness, hate crimes, widespread joblessness, murder, rape, rape, rape, oh, and more rape on top of that, I don't really find anything funny or cynical about a country that for the first time in a long time wants change that could possibly include more than all the middle class fat and happy white men and their wives and offspring in this country. That being said here's the post in question:
"I'm confused. I've been hearing an awful lot of talk about voting for this guy... I think his name is Change. So, I took my ballot and looked for his name, but I couldn't find him. I dug down in the deep ugly crevices of my brain and remembered this other guy named Hope. But he wasn't on the ballot either. All I kept hearing was YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!
Man. I'm bummed. I wanted to be a part of history, but I couldn't find a mythical savior to vote for."
Hm, well not to worry middle class white man, you too can be part of history! Fear not! You can be part of the historical moral majority that holds and has held our country back and down for countless years. Somehow it doesn't seem healthy to be like that. Unhealthy to be so cynical that you cant get your head out of your crusty republican rear and vote for some attempt at change, and yes, hope . I think its time for this country to have some attainable hope shown to them that doesn't come just from the preachers pulpit. When I look at Obama, and I look at the other choices all I can think is yes I am truly ready for some change in the ways of this country. And that is not a false hope, or a joke, a silly desire, a random whim, a non intellectual thought. So laugh about these words that you throw around so easily, this change and this hope. And all I can say is...who looks silly now? Theres nothing silly about change or hope. The only people who think its silly, from where I'm standing, are mostly white men and women who care more about their personal morals and big business than about the idea of a global consciousness.
And true, this "mythical savior" figure might not exist, but don't kid yourself, John McCain is no savior either, hes not even a saint. He is, in my book, on his merry way to becoming the "100 Year War" real deal. Id rather vote for hope and change, than war, doom, destruction, and the preexisting historical legacy of rich white men (or women).
21 comments:
You're kind of fun. I like you.
Do you really believe that the white middle class male has had the majority to do with the oppression of the American people? The "white" middle class hard working farmer, educator, social worker, barber, pastor, civil rights activist who loves his family and friends. The person who pays his taxes and has almost no time to do anything other than work to make sure his families needs are met. This guy isn't the problem. The problem has been and will remain the wealthiest 1% of our Country. These are the men and women that decide the electoral votes. These are the men and women that tell you that the middle class white man is evil so you won't look too closely at those who are really in power.
I understand your take on the Pro-choice thing. No one wants women to harm themselves in order to abort their children, but I want to argue an alternative. We need to spend less money on abortion clinics and more on educating women on the adoption process. My wife was adopted and I wouldn't be the person I am today without her. Though, to be fair, she is a pretty hardcore democrat/feminist on every subject (other than the obvious, abortion). She is also a dedicated believer in Jesus' teachings and lifestyle. That is a life of love, forgiveness, and hope. I write this just so you know that not every Christian fits the stereotype you just described to represent all White middle class males.
That being said, I enjoyed reading your blog. Thank you for having an opinion I don't hear very often in my world and it made me think.
I'm too tired to edit. I apologize for any typos.
You're kind of fun. I like you.
Do you really believe that the white middle class male has had the majority to do with the oppression of the American people? The "white" middle class hard working farmer, educator, social worker, barber, pastor, civil rights activist who loves his family and friends. The person who pays his taxes and has almost no time to do anything other than work to make sure his families needs are met. This guy isn't the problem. The problem has been and will remain the wealthiest 1% of our Country. These are the men and women that decide the electoral votes. These are the men and women that tell you that the middle class white man is evil so you won't look too closely at those who are really in power.
I understand your take on the Pro-choice thing. No one wants women to harm themselves in order to abort their children, but I want to argue an alternative. We need to spend less money on abortion clinics and more on educating women on the adoption process. My wife was adopted and I wouldn't be the person I am today without her. Though, to be fair, she is a pretty hardcore democrat/feminist on every subject (other than the obvious, abortion). She is also a dedicated believer in Jesus' teachings and lifestyle. That is a life of love, forgiveness, and hope. I write this just so you know that not every Christian fits the stereotype you just described to represent all White middle class males.
That being said, I enjoyed reading your blog. Thank you for having an opinion I don't hear very often in my world and it made me think.
I'm too tired to edit. I apologize for any typos.
Hey Darren, thanks for responding.
I have to say that no I dont believe that the white middle class men or women hold total responsibility for the oppression of the American people. I agree with you that there is a l% of ridiculously wealthy people pulling strings that need to be held accountable. However, do you truly believe that the white (I'm going to add republican here) middle class has no agency? I understand the reality of working working and working, but that does not negate their ability to think, form opinion, and vote. While it would be easy and alot more simple to write off the white middle class as not culpable and as total sheep, I feel like that would be as problematic as labeling them completely responsible for Americas problems. While it is also true that the rich 1% definitely set many of the standards, the white republican middle class chooses (heres the issue of agency and culpability) to follow, chooses to vote accordingly. Another correction I don't think the middle class white man is evil (such a divisive word), and I understand who is really in power, I also have a good idea who went along with the decision to put them there. To say that middle class white republican America isn't the problem is a cop out.
In regards to pro-choice, I understand your "alternative" stance. However there are a few things Id like to address in what you wrote. Firstly, not all abortion is harmful to the woman. It really depends where the woman is in regards to trimester, etc. Secondly, I think youre wrong about needing to spend less money on clinics and more on education. I think we need to spend more money on both. You are operating under the assumption that "good" education is going to make women realize that abortion is unessesary or not what they want. This is delusional. I think that quite the opposite would happen. Educated people usually question authority to a larger extent than non educated people. I think with more education, which is needed, women will questions standards and assumptions about their body and their reproductive systems even more. Adoption is awesome, however, sometimes its the actual birthing process that a woman cannot afford to go through. How do you respond to these women? Women who cannot take care of a child, but who cannot afford to even birth one.
I'm glad about your wife. I would like to clarify my stance on a few things quickly. I don't think you have to be what our country likes to polarize as "pro-choice" to be a feminist, nor do I think you need to be "pro life" to be a good christian following the ways of Jesus. I know many feminists who are pro life and many Christian folk who are pro choice. I understand the message of the teaching of Jesus, just as I absolutely understand that not all Christians are white, male, and republican...or pro life for that matter. You are preaching to' the choir, but seeing as you don't know me or my personal history well at all thats alright. One last thing about pro-life that maybe you already know, but if not, I would like for you to internalize. Being into love, forgiveness, and hope doesn't necessarily equal pro life. Your wife's political CHOICE to be prolife is not something that innately couples itself with Jesus, love, hope, caring, etc. Please, don't be someone who polarizes the two stances like the rest of the world does. Abortion is a difficult issue, its not black and white at all. People can be life loving, caring people, and still believe that women deserve a choice in their own reproduction.
I'm glad you enjoyed my blog. However, have you ever questioned why is it that you somehow, as youve stated, don't hear an alternate opinion in "your world" often? A world in which only one opinion exists, in which no one argues constructively, in which no one thinks or argues outside the box, in which people don't look for multiple viewpoints, sounds like a kind of scary black and white world. Maybe you should find some people who you differ from and start a discussion group or something...its an awesome and fun way to debate, learn, all kinds of great things!
I live in what I consider the republican capital of the world, Cincinnati. I've found it difficult to find many different opinions. I, however, was raised by two educators who were very outspoken Democrats. I feel that I have taken their wisdom and combined it with my understanding of "conservative" issues to create a best of both worlds perspective.
Some things I should clairfy: I am a true Pro-lifer (Against Capital punishment and Abortion). Though I, on occasion, have differing opinions from those around me (other than abortion) I find that those around me sound the same. I call myself a conservative Democrat. I am all for improving education with the tax payer's dollar. I am for supporting small business. I am all for unions that are not abusing power. I believe white oppression in Business is still very real and things like affirmative action are necessary. To be honest, I imagine most Americans have similar beliefs. My education and discussion with folks all over the country has led me to beleive that the vast majority of our country is split over only a hand full of issues. Sadly these issues are the ones that make white middle class republicans look like stubborn mules.
"I've found it difficult to find many different opinions."
* I'm sorry for that. Ive lived in Cincinnati my whole life and have been able to meet and talk to many people, with many differing opinions.
"To be honest, I imagine most Americans have similar beliefs"
* I would imagine that you're right. It is honestly too bad we only have a two party system, I am all for the combination, mismatch, and invention of personalized political labels like conservative democrat.
"has led me to believe that the vast majority of our country is split over only a hand full of issues."
*once again, true. I put a good chunk of blame on the dominant, upheld form of the English language for this. Language is...my apparently favorite word...problematic. The English language is absolutely inadequate in many situations,it has a hard time adequately allowing for the expression of nuance, and is in many many cases intensely polarizing. Although, institutions uphold the language. And people uphold institutions. One example being higher education and the problematic language used in many fields of academic text. There are so many layers to examine in any one situation or question.
Something I want to tag on is that there are many layers to the issue of abortion. There are so many viewpoints, so many things to take into account. Its not just black and white. Its not just a woman (oh but we usually call her a mother, because that is supposed to denote some sort of nurturing "natural" instinct that should kick in the minute her egg is fertilized) who decides to selfishly murder (a sensational word) her child so she can perhaps shirk her duty, or go off and have more irresponsible usually unmarried sex. My answer to Scott's blog about abortion is that before a moral judgment is made perhaps you should wade through the different perspectives, the histories, the laws, of BOTH sides as they exist here on earth. Situate yourself in what you find. Confront your personal biases (that we all have) and then make your now more objective decision. So that way when you choose to take a political stance of either pro choice or pro life and vote accordingly, you'll be able to make your choice with the whole country and its infinitely deep history in mind. Not just your own point of view from your own comparatively not omnipotent life.
I agree. It is important that we understand the many layers, history, etc., on abortion.
I was Pro-choice for the first 18 years of my life, but my education (pre-med) altered my perspective even before my faith played a role (I became a Christian at 18). I understand the history of abortion and feel that an abortion has its place. I would rather an abortion take place if the mother is going to be seriously physically harmed or if the baby has NO chance of survival outside of the mother(by medical doctor order only- this is still pro-life). I also feel if a woman would rather mutilate herself than have a baby, abortion is a better alternative. I believe I don't have the right to judge a person for having an abortion. I do, however, feel education will provide answers for those who were irresponsible in getting pregnant as well as for rape victims. Yes, I agree that well educated adults are more likely to question authority, but arguing with science and logical data driven alternatives isn't really arguing with authority. If a person chooses to ignore facts, at this point it is just ignorance and pride.
I agree that there is no such thing as maternal instinct, everything we do is learned.
I agree. It is important that we understand the many layers, history, etc., on abortion.
I was Pro-choice for the first 18 years of my life, but my education (pre-med) altered my perspective even before my faith played a role (I became a Christian at 18). I understand the history of abortion and feel that an abortion has its place. I would rather an abortion take place if the mother is going to be seriously physically harmed or if the baby has NO chance of survival outside of the mother(by medical doctor order only- this is still pro-life). I also feel if a woman would rather mutilate herself than have a baby, abortion is a better alternative. I believe I don't have the right to judge a person for having an abortion. I do, however, feel education will provide answers for those who were irresponsible in getting pregnant as well as for rape victims. Yes, I agree that well educated adults are more likely to question authority, but arguing with science and logical data driven alternatives isn't really arguing with authority. If a person chooses to ignore facts, at this point it is just ignorance and pride.
I agree that there is no such thing as maternal instinct, everything we do is learned.
"I also feel if a woman would rather mutilate herself than have a baby, abortion is a better alternative."
* would you elaborate on the specifics of abortion as mutilation? Maybe you know something I don't know.
"I do, however, feel education will provide answers for those who were irresponsible in getting pregnant as well as for rape victims."
* Would you elaborate on this too? I feel like this is very simplistic and idealistic. Great, but idealistic. What happens after the education? I mean...having education is great, and needed. My problem with this scenario is say we were somehow able to educate every young woman and woman about this. Even if we educate them,if there aren't tons of financial aid systems set in place by our government or by non profits to help women who help women afford to not only birth their babies but then afford the medical care or medicine they might need for themselves, abortion seems like the only other choice. I am not pro choice because I think abortion is a great thing. I'm pro choice because I truly believe that things like birthing, pregnancy, women in general, women's sexuality, are all caught up in different "webs" if you will of influence and politics. Despite an education about sex, abortion, adoption, a woman's race, or socio/economic status within our country might make it hard for her to not choose abortion. In my opinion for abortion to be made illegal, and I would love for this to happen, large systems of inequality that currently disenfranchise the poor, the black, the Latino, the immigrant, etc, will need to drastically change in favor of the marginalized. This hasn't happened yet, and so I am pro choice.
One of the original reasons Abortion was legalized was that women were literally mutilating their bodies. By this I mean taking knifes and cutting the fetus out of themselves. In more than two dozen cases doctors reported that women were using Steel Hangers to destroy the fetus inside them. This is what I mean by mutilation. Physically harming oneself.
The poorest folks in America are not really worried about not having enough money. The government gives money to these folks monthly without fail.
A significant portion of the abortion cases are white middle and upper class Americans who can likely afford children, but would rather not have "the burden" on them.
As far as money goes, to people who don't want children, adoption is an even better resource than abortion financially. Adoption agencies (who have lengthy waiting lists) require that the parents who want to adopt a child pay any and all of the medical expenses for the adopted baby and birthing mother. This includes prenatal vitamins, ultrasounds, etc. In many cases this also includes a food allowance for the birthing mother. Most women don't know that this is even an option. Or they are unwilling to look into it because they can't even imagine folks want children so bad that they would spend 30 or 40 thousand to have a child in their lives.
My biggest issue with abortion isn't that they happen as much as they are too easily accessible. I would rather abortion be the solution only when a woman would rather mutilate (physically harm) herself rather than to have a baby. Money will always be there for those who ask. I have a client who has adopted 19 children and plans to adopt more to prove this.
I hope I answered your questions. I tend to go all over the place.
thanks, it answered my questiosn. Just for clafification, your mutilation is what I call back alley way abortions in my original post. Which is one thing that will happen if abortion is made illegal, or inaccesible to the masses.
"The poorest folks in America are not really worried about not having enough money. The government gives money to these folks monthly without fail."
* Not really worried? What? wait...what? How much money, exactly, do you think poor people get a month? Enough for them to not worry about money anymore? I dont get food stamps or qualify for welfare, and even I worry about money constantly because I barely scrape by every month after bills, not to go into too much detail. Your quote above seems to say that you think that welfare (Im assuming this is what youre reffering to) doles out an adequate amount of money to whoever needs it, when they need it, for as long as they need it....could you explain?
I didn't mean that the government is doling enough money for everyone who needs it to get by. However, one of the problems in relationship to the welfare system is the more children a person has, the more money a person receives. (Everything I'm writing about at the moment pertains to child bearing and abortion.) So in this case having children is an incentive. Why abort when you can increase your federal aid?
To pay my way through college I became a Barber. Barber Colleges are usually in the poorest and most underfunded areas of America. This is so the less fortunate can afford decent hair cuts. Fair, right? The best part of Barber College is getting to know some of the homeless folks around the area. As you get to know these folks you also get a chance to learn the many ways to take advantage of the system. One of the most common ways to make money off of our government is to have kids. I know this because I have several experiences with this culture. I myself lived on the streets in Sacramento for a few weeks. This is just a simple reality. We, the middle and lower middle class, have much more to worry about financially than the poorest in our culture. This is a reality I've seen personally.
On the other end, I agree that our system is insufficient for helping folks who are really in need. There are thousands of people who have integrity and are unwilling to accept aid. For those folks I wish we had a better system. The problem is that these people are the minority which is why we have a flawed system. If you have a better solution I would be excited to hear it, because I have been trying to figure out a way to solve this problem since I attended in Barber College.
Sorry about the mistakes. I have been terrible about editing lately.
your editing is fine :)
"Why abort when you can increase your federal aid?"
* This is just off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure its correct (I'm going to do some online research and find out for sure though) BUT I think that you can only go on welfare for a set amount of time, and then after that time is up you have to wait a set amount of time to then reapply for it. Its not just a thing that keeps on giving. Mothers with children get kicked off it when the time is up just like other people. Ive had friends who have been on welfare,a few of them with children, or were on it as children, and Ive heard them vocalize something like this. I once heard a seminar that was about debunking the myth of the welfare mother, a myth that is easily blamed for many things. Actual statistics and facts were used...I'm going to try to find them.
"One of the most common ways to make money off of our government is to have kids. I know this because I have several experiences with this culture. I myself lived on the streets in Sacramento for a few weeks. This is just a simple reality. We, the middle and lower middle class, have much more to worry about financially than the poorest in our culture. This is a reality I've seen personally."
* One point, and I don't mean to sound nit picky, but...you lived on the streets for a few weeks. I understand that this isn't a really short amount of time, but I don't feel you can generalize about "the poor" from that experience. Plus, in what context did you live on the streets? Have you ever personally come in contact with or have any experience researching the welfare system? I'm not trying to negate your experience, I'm just interested in details because you are making very monolithic statements like "We, the middle and lower middle class, have much more to worry about financially than the poorest in our culture."
Plus, I personally am not middle class at all. I'm not even lower middle class.
"This is just a simple reality."
* There is no such thing in our world. Essentialism is a dangerous thing.
"We, the middle and lower middle class, have much more to worry about financially than the poorest in our culture. This is a reality I've seen personally."
* "WE" the middle and lower middle class may have more financial DEBT to worry about than the poorest of the poor who have no credit. Also, "WE" have more financial "worry" because "WE" have to worry about house payments, insurance policies, budgeting for groceries, personal expenditure, trips, school loans, etc. I would have to say when I compare that to worrying financially about how to eat, how to clothe and shelter my family in them most basic way, how to afford the most basic health care from usually clinics, how to find and afford (the bus is expensive now) transportation to and from work, how to pay for expensive meds. for ailing relatives or children, or spouses who bring in more income and whose labor is essential to helping the family get OFF welfare which no one wants to be on IF THEY CAN HELP IT, middle class debt and financial worry sounds pretty cushy to me. At least when "WE" worry at night, "WE" do it in the house that we know will be there everyday after we get done driving or taking the bus home from our jobs every day. How can you even say that the middle class and lower middle class have it harder than the poorest of poor? I am truly at a loss to understand that.
Wow. I love your passion.
You are correct that welfare only lasts for a predetermined amount of time. However, welfare isn't our governments only form of aid. Just the most well known. The people I worked with at Barber College had extensive knowledge of other aid programs that offered excellent free housing, Paid for higher education (at elite schools), and paid for expenses such as food. The only thing these folks weren't given money for was clothing.
I do love your passion and I don't know you well enough to understand your life experiences, but "the poorest of the poor" are not the poorest of the poor" because of social injustice alone. Yes it is important to understand social injustice, but other factors must be accounted for:
Here is an example of what I've seen and read. Below are two quotes from a professor who was asked to research homelessness by our government:
"According to The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), '50% of all homeless is a 'single' adult who has a drug or alcohol problem,' but it is not the only cause of homelessness. Alcoholism also contributes to unemployment. For example, more than 85% of alcoholic homeless men had not been employed for at least 6 months, and neither had 79% of nonalcoholic homeless men."
Here is another quote from that same paper:
"(drugs, alcohol, mental illness)...cannot be the only cause of homelessness by itself because most of homeless people get some money whether they are employed or not employed ([ICH], 1991), and some people are not willing to work because of the government assistance payment. In terms of alcoholism and drug abuse(chemical dependency), only homeless people who are addicted have a high risk of becoming homeless. ([NCH], 1995) Only 5% to 7% of homeless people with mental illness need to be institutionalized.([NCH], 1995) It can be said that homeless people escape from working. Even though social factors should not be overlooked, I strongly insist that the homeless people are responsible for their own conditions."
Here is the thing, your passion for the many social injustices is awesome, but look too deep at what is really going on and you'll become cynical. You are right in saying that there is no such thing as a simple reality. I should have said, the reality is that people in the lowest income brackets are either uneducated (which in some cases is choice, because there are literally thousands of programs for these folks- free Beauty and Barber College is one) or in many cases addicted to something that is destroying their and their families lives.
I'm not claiming that what you write isn't true, but rather less frequent than you might think. I don't drive a Lexus, Mercedes, Cadillac, etc., however, more people than I can count drove 5 year old or newer models of high end cars and still collected welfare or another form of aid. Things just aren't as they seem is what I'm trying to convey.
I spent about 1 & 1/2 years living with the "poorest of the poor" in both Lexington, KY and Sacramento, CA. One of my friends in Lexington explained to me that "The game is the same everywhere."
I don't much about your faith, but I'm convinced you are a believer. Our God promises to meet the needs of anyone who asks. I'm yet to meet a person who honestly asks God to meet their needs be denied. God loves creation too much.
When I say "we, the middle and lower middle class have more to worry about financially," I also mean "we" have more to worry about because "we" are less likely to be completely dependent on God. I can say from personal experience that there is a unique calm (peace) that comes when a person is completely dependent on God. Materials are what Americans worry about. You don't worry about something you don't have.
I have to say I am really enjoying this exchange.
Fine political tirade, dear niece!
& I promise to listen to Steve Earle soon.
& You are -- of course! -- still invited to visit this summer. ;-)
Yr NYC Uncle.
Boy, you both have a lot of truth on your side! I wish I knew exactly where the truth lies, and exactly which policy is most virtuous. But I don't. I can't fully justify what I advocate politically and how I vote, but advocate and vote I do. I ask God for His guidance and His merciful blessings, for each and every one of us. And particularly for the three of us writing these comments! Be of good will, and good cheer.
How do you all feel about frilly toothpicks?
they're a bit too much for me, to tell you the truth :)
Post a Comment