Enthusiastically Ambiverted Hopepunk
Politically, I’m very liberal — about as far left as one can go without sliding into Libertarianism.
Had a #nobillnobreak Periscope feed running in the background all day. Happy to see it happening, proud of all the Dems supporting it (from WA and otherwise), sad that it took this long and this many deaths to start seriously fighting agains the NRA-controlled Repubs. I wish we had a better solution than #noflynobuy, since the no-fly list is a frightening mess, but it’s long past time to have the conversation. #holdthefloor (174/366)
This is one of the very few times when I’ll actually agree that my vote truly does not matter — and yet, I’m still voting. Because that’s part of participating. Even when it seems silly. (126/366)
Well, here’s a ridiculously useless ballot. WA chooses by caucus, so the Democrat side of the primary is pointless, and the only Republican candidate still running is Trump. What a waste. That said, I’ll still do it. Just…because, I guess. As long as the state has to spend money on this foolishness, I might as well give them something to do.
An excerpt from a post by Sofia Ali-Khan on Facebook, the whole thing should be read as well:
Out yourself as someone who won’t stand for Islamophobia, or will stand with Muslims—there is an awful lot of hate filling the airways, and there are an awful lot of people with access to the media and/or authority stirring the pot about Muslims. Please help fill that space with support instead. Post, write, use your profile picture or blog to voice your support.
I can tell you that in addition to the very real threat to their civil and human rights that Muslims are facing, we are dealing with a tremendous amount of anxiety. While we, many of us, rely on our faith to stay strong, we are human. This is not an easy time. What you do will mean everything to the Muslim Americans around you. Thank you for reading and bless you in your efforts.
One of the friendliest, most genuinely pleasant students I got to know here at CWU is Muslim. He graduated with his BA in Law and Justice last year, and is now working on his master’s degree. While an undergraduate, he was involved in several campus clubs reaching out to underprivileged and minority students. Now, he works with young people at a local juvenile detention facility. Just yesterday, he was here with a small group of them, as he has been every couple weeks this quarter, bringing them in to our department to meet and speak with community figures as part of the kids’ rehabilitation measures. The dedication and care he showed as a student and shows now as a counselor and leader is truly inspiring.
There are always a number of international Muslim students at CWU, mostly from Saudi Arabia, here learning English and pursuing American academic degrees. While I don’t often work directly with them (though my wife does, and has a lot of fun working with them as they learn English), many of their classes are held in the building where I work, so I see them quite frequently. It’s fun to see them talking and laughing, not just in Arabic among themselves, but frequently in English as they speak with the Korean and Chinese students who are also part of our international programs. I’ve often received very pleasant greetings and smiles from the men and women both — and, yes, sometimes I can only see the women’s smiles in their eyes, as the rest of their face is covered, but the smile still shows through.
And so often these days, I worry about what these students must think of us. How often they worry about their own safety. How often they’re the victim of attacks, subtle or overt, verbal, non-verbal, or physical. How frightening it must be for them to be here, trying to learn, to improve their lives, to experience life in another country, to make friends and expand their world, all while knowing that so much of this country fears and hates them because of the actions of a small group of extremists who don’t speak for the majority.
I am # standingwithmuslims . I condemn Islamophobia and hate speech. And I’m greatly saddened that so many people who profess to love this country are so scared that they’re so willing to abandon many of the core concepts that this country is built on.
Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!
The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.
The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
TL;DR: The phrase “Black lives matter” carries an implicit “too” at the end; it’s saying that black lives should also matter. Saying “all lives matter” is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.
(NOTE: This was originally a Facebook post.)
I just did a quick check, and of my 509 friends on Facebook, a full 124 of them have used Facebook’s little profile picture tool to rainbow-ify themselves. A further 13 have some other form of rainbow-themed profile picture that I feel confident ascribing to recognition and support of LGBTQ+ pride and marriage equality.
That works out to 137 of 509, or 27% of my Facebook friends who are publicly displaying their support for full equality, regardless of sexual orientation. That[‘s a huge percentage, even for an admittedly self-selected group of contacts, most of whom are highly likely to share my general beliefs. (And to be clear, I’m not at all claiming that those who haven’t changed their profile picture don’t support this cause; I’m not equating lack of rainbows to lack of support, just looking at those who have chosen to do this).]{.text_exposed_show}
::: {.text_exposed_show}
So, two immediate thoughts:
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.
So the Genesis story gets written as a justification for why women are they way they are, of how they’re the ones to blame, and of why it’s right for men to take charge, because when a woman decides for herself… well, isn’t that how everything ended up so terrible? But what the story really says, this story men made up to hold women down, is that women have the power to change the world. Women have the power to throw the world into chaos and they do it because the world as it is isn’t good enough. Adam is content and Eve is proactive. Women see God’s world and think, this could be better. Let’s make it better. And if that’s called sin than it’s the best sin there is because without change nothing would ever happen. Without women, the story doesn’t even begin.
This bit of the SLOG’s analysis of last night’s State of the Union address just disgusts me:
Here’s an incomplete list of things Republicans refused to applaud last night: equal pay for women, the end of torture as an American interrogation tactic, easier access to community college, tax breaks for the middle class, a higher minimum wage, affordable childcare, the rejection of “offensive stereotypes of Muslims,” and the “condemn[ation of] the persecution of women, or religious minorities, or people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.” That’s some cartoon villain bullshit, right there. They basically refused to cheer for anything but straight white Christian businessmen.
And then, of course, there was this wonderful bit:
I’ve been seeing a lot of excitement about Obama’s announcement last night of his proposal to make community college free for as many students as possible. And yes, in many ways, the excitement is warranted. Higher education is a great thing, and absolutely should be made more accessible to as many people who are interested in it as it can be. So on that level, I entirely approve of his proposals.
Unfortunately, I’m highly skeptical that it is likely to do much good for people here in Washington State.
The part of Obama’s plan that stands out to me is the requirement for states to share the burden of picking up the tuition costs for students (emphasis in the following quotes is mine):
This proposal will require everyone to do their part: community colleges must strengthen their programs and increase the number of students who graduate, states must invest more in higher education and training, and students must take responsibility for their education, earn good grades, and stay on track to graduate.
[…]
Ensuring Shared Responsibility with States: Federal funding will cover three-quarters of the average cost of community college. States that choose to participate will be expected to contribute the remaining funds necessary to eliminate community college tuition for eligible students. States that already invest more and charge students less can make smaller contributions, though all participating states will be required to put up some matching funds. States must also commit to continue existing investments in higher education; coordinate high schools, community colleges, and four-year institutions to reduce the need for remediation and repeated courses; and allocate a significant portion of funding based on performance, not enrollment alone. States will have flexibility to use some resources to expand quality community college offerings, improve affordability at four-year public universities, and improve college readiness, through outreach and early intervention.
It’s perfectly reasonable, really. But here in Washington, higher education is not a current funding priority, and is constantly facing more cuts:
Double-digit tuition increases. Class cuts that would make it harder to finish a degree in four years. Enrollment cutbacks that would make it more difficult to get admitted to a state university.
Washington’s public college and university presidents, warning that a hypothetical 15 percent cut to higher education would be devastating to public colleges and universities, are in a standoff with the state Office of Financial Management (OFM) over fiscal planning for the next two years.
[…]
About two-thirds of the state’s budget is protected by constitutional and federal requirements — categories such as K-12 education, pensions and mandatory Medicaid. Budget cuts must come from the remaining one-third of the budget, which includes higher education, state prisons and social services. And some of those categories — prisons, for example — are very difficult to trim.
Since the beginning of the recession in 2008, one of the hardest-hit segments of the state budget has been higher education. It’s the principal reason why state college tuition has increased so fast.
In this financial climate, I’m extremely skeptical that Washington will be participating in this program, should it move forward. We simply don’t have the money, and won’t until the voters realize that we actually need to be willing to pay for all these services that we think we should have.
I think Obama’s general idea is a good one, and I support it and the thinking behind it. I just wish I could be more optimistic that students in Washington would actually have a chance to take advantage of it.