The Free Speech Zone

Sunday, May 11, 2008

What’s in a name?

My fellow political blogger Ted recently wrote an interesting piece comparing the Democratic nomination battle to the Kentucky Derby. The comparison has incited some controversy, and it’s made me think of a few things- namely how we, as a society, define sexism and racism.

I grew up the daughter of a feminist, a card carrying member of the National Organization of Women. What that experience taught me is not that women are better than men (as so many are want to assume of the feminists), or that women hate men (does the term feminazis mean anything?), but that feminism is about equality. It’s about freedom of choice, freedom of life, freedom to be and do anything we want, not just as women but as people. There’s the crux of it for me: women and men ought to have equal considerations and opportunities, with no regard of gender.

In the same vein, I think that race and sexual orientation and religion ought to not be relevant. Why is it relevant that someone is gay or black or Mormon or Muslim or Hispanic or transexual? What bearing does that have on anything- in society, in the working world, or in politics?

Because of my propensity to accept people for who they are rather than dismiss them with easy labels, this political race has been interesting for me as a spectator. That such diversity has existed from the beginning has been fascinating, but, in all honesty, society’s (and the media’s) reactions to these differences has been disheartening. Why was Romney the Mormon candidate? Why is there discussion about Obama’s non-existent Muslim influences? Why does it matter at all that a woman is competing with a black man? Is that all we see when we look at these candidates? Is that all we see in the people we meet on a daily basis? Do we just look at them and label so as to dismiss them and go on about our day? And if we do label this way, what does that say about us? That we’re ignorant? Superficial? Short-sighted? Racist? Sexist?

Which brings me back to Ted’s blog. In using the Kentucky Derby as a reference, Ted employs some terms for Clinton and Obama that some find offensive. I readily admit to being one of them. If we look at a strong female candidate and call her a tough filly what are we focusing on? To me it seems like we are using her gender as a point of diminishment, as a way to make her an animal, as a way to subtly ridicule her. Is Clinton only in the race because she’s tough and a woman? Is her whole character and campaign about gender? Is anyone just about being man or woman, black or white? Beyond that is the issue, for me, of labeling. Calling a woman a filly, a dame, a broad, a chic or any other “girl” label makes her less than the sum of her character. It makes her about a word. It makes her smaller, diminishes her accomplishments. Clinton is a woman, yes, but she is also about more than that, and to say that she’s one tough filly is offensive not because political correctness is important but because it says to the world at large that she is irrelevant because she’s a woman.

In the same vein, calling Obama “Slim and Brown” makes him about the color of his skin. I find this offensive for the same reason. Not only is his race referenced here, but Ted makes it clear that Obama is “brown”- a term people in both the white and black communities use to segregate those with differences. Here Obama is not just labeled by his race, but set aside from both the African American community (haven’t we heard those criticisms of Obama as “not black enough”?) and from whites as well. Is he only about being slim and brown, then? Are his accomplishments, like Clinton’s, only about the color of his skin, about his physical appearance? I have to insist, again, that labeling this way is not a slight to political correctness but an offense in our efforts as a society to be accepting of all people, to move beyond labels and differences and toward a more equal society.
Ted’s insistence that “political correctness has gone too far when it censors all references to our differences” implies that it is our differences that are note-worthy. I have to disagree. I think that focusing on our differences is what leads to segregation, discrimination and hate. Maybe it’s awfully liberal of me, or even naive of me, to expect that we, as educated adults, could get beyond school yard taunts and over-focus on what makes us different, but I feel very strongly that it is precisely the kind of language Ted uses that, at best, leads to sexism and racism (though, quite honestly, I have to say that I think they are already blatantly racist and sexist). Perhaps Ted didn’t mean them this way and I suspect he didn’t because from Ted’s other blogs I’ve never gotten the impression that he’s particularly sexist or racist, but the effect is the same, and the effect is this: it’s divisive, hurtful, and, well, rude.

I have to fall back on the greatest civil rights speech ever because this is what I believe we need, what we ought to be striving for when we give up stupid labels and blatant ignorance:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, May 05, 2008

I’m sick!  Of health care talk, anyway

There’s alot of talk in the political arena about health care. About plans and coverage and limits and enforcement. And today, on a personal level, it feels like alot of talk. It feels like political pandering. It feels like people are trying to put a band-aid on a problem that’s bigger than just allowing everyone access to health care.

More and more when there’s an injury or an illness in my house, I turn to the internet so I can treat it myself. Why? Because I don’t like our family doctor. Because I don’t like to force unnecessary tests or medicines on my children. Because I don’t like sitting in a waiting room with sick children when we’re well or having my sick child expose others to their germs. Because I don’t like that our pediatrician likes to run blood and urine tests for almost everything. Because antibiotics are still so over-prescribed, even though we’re all supposed to know better.

But it’s not just doctor’s visits that annoy me. It’s the way health care coverage is organized, the way decisions are made, the way so many things aren’t covered by insurance. I want to know who decides what should be paid for and what shouldn’t. I want to know why doctor’s offices give so much time and attention to drug reps and so little to patients. I want to know why hospitals have “standards of care” that have more to do with rigid rules than either standards or care. I want to know why so little is done for the good of patients and so much is done for the sake of money. I also want to know why viagra is covered under many health insurance plans but homebirth isn’t. I want to know why acupuncture and massage therapy aren’t recognized as important parts of physical well-being. If it’s different, it seems, than it’s bad.

I’m sick of it honestly. I’m sick of the politics of it, as well. Our health care crisis is not just about having so many uninsured people, though that’s a huge problem, of course. Our health care crisis is also about lack of options, about lack of patient education, and about the gross abuse of the economics of health care. Can any of our candidates really fix these things? I don’t know; more and more, I’m cynical. More and more it seems like we’re too willing to accept less than we deserve; we’re so used to shoddy medical care, to long waits in the lobby and short consultations, to doctors and nurses who don’t listen to our entire problem, to quick diagnoses that are too often wrong, to being over-billed and under-insured. We have to stop accepting this crap and take some initiative to instigate change. Because, really, having insurance doesn’t solve these problems, doesn’t make it easier to access a good doctor or get good treatment. And that’s what we really need to solve this so called health care crisis. I’d like to see the candidates actually address that for a change.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, April 11, 2008

Ben and Jerry made me think of more than ice cream- a lesson in responsible consumerism

The other day I stumbled across a controversy I’d somehow missed in my regular news reading. Could be I overlooked the stories; could be it’s hiding down below all the election/war/economy coverage. Could be most people don’t care. Regardless, I found it interesting and it made me think of a much larger question: why don’t more people, myself included, practice responsible consumerism?

So, let’s back up to what initiated this question. I was eating Ben and Jerry’s with the Slightly Crunchy Parent (who had heard of this controversy, incidentally), and we were talking about how long their ice cream had been rGBH free (rGBH is Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone- it’s basically used to make cows bigger faster and help them produce more milk, etc. Studies show some possible human downsides to consumption of it, and many people- myself included- are opposed to the usage on ethical grounds). So I went to their website where I found a snippet about how several states are trying to ban rBH free labeling; I was dubious. I mean, why would such a label be banned? I can certainly understand if they tried to regulate the labeling to prevent false claims, but banning it? A quick google search revealed that Ben and Jerry were right (and can I just say how much I love their ice cream? Are you out there, Ben and Jerry? Will you send me some free ice cream for loving you so much!?); there is legislation out there that would prevent or restrict the usage of rGBH free labeling on milk and dairy packaging. I immediately did my part and sent my internet letters and signed up for email updates, but it left me thinking about packaging and good purchase decisions.

Growth hormones and pesticide free foods are not the only controversial consumer decisions we face. Everyday every decision we make in spending our money sends a message to someone, and it seems to me that these messages get louder and louder the longer we pretend to ignore them. When you opt for Wal-mart because their prices are cheaper, you tell Wal-mart that you support their business practices. When you buy a Nestle product, you tell Nestle that you support their irresponsibility as global citizens (that was a nice way to put it, don’t you think?). There are so many products and companies that stand for something besides candy or cheap goods; they stand for anti-unionization, low pay and low benefits, the destruction of small, privately owned businesses, the starvation of babies, removal of reproductive rights, and so much more. It seems to me that we all, myself included, need to become better global citizens, better consumers, better activists by looking at the repercussions of all of our little choices. It’s these little choices, after all, that add up to be a big resounding yell to the corporate giants and the media and the politicians. It’s these little choices, compounded one on top of another, that make us active participants in our world instead of passive bystanders.

So, go do some product and company research. Buy milk that comes from happy cows. Stop buying candy from Nestle. Pay a little more and avoid Wal-mart. Make conscious decisions, whatever they are (even if they are different than mine) and be an active citizen. And by all means, if you know of a product or company that needs a good boycott or deserves to be on my do not buy list, tell me!

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Knowledge is power- at any age

I’m taking a break from all the presidential election drama (Rice for V.P- really? Richardson as Judas- what!?) because a discussion happened today in my life that I find intriguing, and more than a little disturbing.

The back story: yesterday my kids and I were involved in a commercial shoot for the Obama in 30 seconds contest. It was suggested to me after the shoot (today) that perhaps their involvement was a kind of exploitation for the sake of politics. The kids, after all, had no idea what they were talking about when they were “supporting” Obama in the footage. I can see the validity of this point, though I disagree, at least in this instance, because the focus of the ad was not on the children but on the idea of family.
That aside, there was a further point made in the discussion that I find particularly relevant to my life and to the world at large: it was said that children ought not be exposed to politics and political “issues” until they are old enough to understand what it’s all about. The age for this understanding, according to this conversation, is somewhere around high school. Until then, kids should be allowed to be kids.

I fundamentally disagree with this position. First, because I don’t view political awareness as something only related to a candidate or to an election year. The world of politics is a big, big world and it encompasses government, taxes, candidates, social issues, wars, peace, globalization, and so many other things. Having a child be socially aware, be aware of the world around him/her is so important, not just when they are old enough to vote but when they are old enough to speak, to listen, to go out into the world and interact with others. Second, because, in my opinion, knowledge is power. Raising a child to be ignorant of issues and politics is not the way to raise the future generation to fix the problems we’ve created. It’s short-sighted and more than a little foolish.

There are other reasons I disagree with this position, other reasons I said that I could not in good conscience limit the amount that my children are exposed to politics. Reasons like how important my own personal convictions and activism are to me personally, like how important it is to me that my children be raised to think and to question and to speak out on the things that are important to them (and how else do we do this, except by modeling), like how essential I think it is for me and for my family to make some small dent in this world, to leave it in some way better than it already is (and, again, how else does this happen except through modeling?).

I wonder, if we as parents let our children be ignorant about the world, about issues and candidates and politics, if we keep our mouths shut about our own views and convictions, where do our children get their information? Recently, my ten year old came home and said that he’d heard at school that Democrats are baby killers. Should I have dismissed this and sent him on his way in ignorance? I don’t advocate brainwashing children into following blindly in their parents footsteps. I’ve strayed far enough from my parents to believe in the importance of free-thinking. And to be clear, I don’t care if my kids support the candidates I support, nor do I care if they grow up to be Republicans, as long as they do it with reason and conviction.

Knowledge is power. Not just mine. Not just for the other people who have it (i.e. the people in government positions). But for everyone who is willing to open their eyes and ears and minds to learn. My kids are part of that. And I have to wonder, am I really so odd to think this way? Am I setting them up to lose their childhood because they shot a commercial or because my ten year old thinks it’s great that an African American man is running for President or because that same child is against the Iraq War? Am I wrong to think that politics is not about an election cycle, to think that change is not about campaign promises, to think that social issues like equal rights and environmentalism are life issues that affect everyone no matter their age?

I don’t think I’m wrong. What about you?

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, March 24, 2008

More than numbers in Iraq

I’ve neglected my VITAL blog lately. In fact, I’ll even confess (with total remorse) that I’ve neglected the news, as well. I haven’t paid a damned bit of attention to what’s been happening in the world, nor in the world of politics (which I’m coming to believe are actually two separate things). I hope you’ll forgive me. Or not. Whatever suits your fancy.

Today, I pulled myself out of post-move haze to read through the headlines. And I found myself faced with a sad one. 4000 dead in Iraq, and the newest casualties seen as nothing more than the ones that helped cross that horrible benchmark. Why aren’t more people upset by this? Why aren’t more people upset the way they were in Vietnam? Remember the protests, the anger, the mass appeal to the government to stop an unjust and unpopular war? Yeah, I know it was a different time, politically and socially. But to me it seems like the passive way people disapprove of this war is indicative of the laziness, and the self-absorption, of our society. Ask most people what bothers them about the war and they’ll probably tell you it’s the ever-increasing gas prices. But 4,000 people, 4,000 American citizens, are dead. It’s a sad number; it’s a number that should never have happened.

But do you know how many Iraqis have died since this war began? Any guesses? I did a little googling because I didn’t know myself. All I knew was that the number is much higher than 4,000. There are estimates that pass over a million people. Yeah, I just said a million. We’re so worried about our 4,000 dead (and it is sad, don’t get me wrong) but we’re not getting the bigger picture: we’re in Iraq under misguided pretenses and we’re to blame for the deaths of over a million people. For what? What did they do to us, honestly? Tell me. I want to know.

I’ll leave you with this clip, that you’ve made seen or read. I think it says alot about this war, about our government, about how our passivity and our self-absorption has allowed so much destruction. Here’s our V.P. in all his glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink