What kind of justice do people who sell arms to embargoed places deserve? A lot less than they actually get says this article.

Last Christmas I had an argument with a right wing, conservative, white, male veteran who was bemoaning that “no one represents people like me anymore, that’s the problem with affirmative action” to which I responded ” I think people like you have control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. What more representation do you need?”

Today there is an article in the NY Times called The Ascent of a Woman about the possibility of having a female president in the United States. The news doesn’t look good and it sums up a few things that any feminist poly sci student could tell you.

1) A lot of female leaders in other countries are part of a dynasty. Their family’s recognition helps voters get past the whole voting for a woman thing. Examples include Indira Gandhi and Corazon Aquino and Benazir Bhutto.

2) While we think that a female leader would be more liberal, the ones that actually get elected are considered unusually tough. Angela Merkel’s father was part of the East German Stazi and Michelle Bachelet of Chile was Defense Minister. Hillary Clinton’s pro-war stance may be an effort to prove she can be just as hawkish as the boys .

3) It is so much easier to get elected in a parliamentary system than a presidential one because it is the entire party that gets voted into office and then the party picks a leader. Once your party is in power passing legislation is a piece of cake compared to the American system.

4) A good pool of women with political experience just doesn’t exist in this country. We are still massively under-represented in the House, Senate and Governors offices.

So Hillary may have some of these credentials- she is a Clinton and she is tough and she is a Senator who has White House experience (as First Lady) But her own party (me included) isn’t really fond of her. Her run to the center appears much more like political pandering than her husband’s centrist acts.

I’m sitting here trying to think of a female politician who I could vote for. My own two senators are out, Patty Murray is kinda inept and Maria Cantwell is also pro-war. Nancy Pelosi did the whole chicken-shit we won’t impeach thing. Madeline Albright is tough and funny, she certainly has the international chops. But she can’t run because she was born outside the US and there is that atrocious quote about the Iraq sanctions (that caused mass starvation in Iraq way before the war resulting in 500,000 Iraqi children dying) “Better 500,000 Iraqis than one American” or something to that effect.

Are there any female politicians you guys would be willing to vote into the White House? And why?

In a recent post last week, I started a line of thought about beliefs and political ideals, noting that I have long believed God planned humanity to have a diversity of views. I didn’t think I would ever finish it, thinking nobody would care, but the topic seems to have stimulated discussion, so I’ll plug along.

I’m having second thoughts about my beliefs based on the idea that there might not be any grand theme in the Bible, and if there is, it is wrong. Not just that the Bible is not inspired in the infallible sense that fundamentalists use it to justify clinging to ancient superstitions, or that there is some great mysterious truth behind the myths, as liberals like to say — just that it is a book created by well-meaning people trying to understand a confusing world.

I don’t want to bog down a blog billed as “cool” with theology, but it is clear reading the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) that a main theme is that God favored the Israelite people and planned to install them — led by a prophet with the office of Messiah (Christ) — as rulers of the earth. I imagine that thought would have comforted a people used to being attacked and forced into subservience by powerful empires.

Christianity teaches that the entire Bible was inspired, but it also teaches that the Jews were wrong because A) the Messiah is God and not a human and B) the real Kingdom is in “heaven” and not a political kingdom on earth. The problem is that the evidence inidicates that Jesus and his disciples clearly believed the Jewish ideas. Christian beliefs to the contrary can only be found by picking out odd verses from different books.

Taking the New Testament books as a whole, it is clear that Jesus and his disciples believed that they were going to be involved in the glorious return of God in their lifetime. In the beginning of the book of Acts, the resurrected Jesus teaches for 40 days about the coming kingdom, and the disciples only recorded question is “when?”

Peter said in his first book “the end is near” and Paul gave people practical tips for an ancient version of Y2K. In the books they wrote just before they died, they changed their tune. For example, in his second book, Peter said to ignore those who scoffed at the idea of the end of the world, even though such talk had been wrong. His famous explanation was that “a day with the Lord is like a thousand years,” evidence that spin is not a modern invention!

So does the Bible have any meaning today in political discourse? For all their faults, I believe fundamentalists do have a point — if the Bible is not inspired, it is just another book produced by a bunch of Middle Easterners who reflected the culture of a primitive time. I can’t agree with their ability to explain away — or ignore — the mixture of slavery, polygamy, blood sacrifice, genocide, the death penalty for a wide variety of offenses such as homosexuality, oddball dietary laws and worship rituals. However, the fundamentalist view makes just as much sense as that of liberal Christians, who speak of a mystic truth behind what they see as well-written fables, but fables nonetheless.

This post is philosophical and not political — that’s a topic for another day. Obviously, the history I provide here is very sketchy and my conclusion is thinking out loud. But maybe our task is to try and do justice and what is right for people and this planet without having to justify its adherence to the Bible.

For a long time I had a big crush on Henry Rollins. This little clip of a letter from Henry to Ann Coulter just renewed my crush.

I just got back from a meeting with my anthropology professor and we had a damn good talk that included my making fun of the economics professor. I said something about how the econ prof was so sexist that the way he talked about his wife in class was “like she is the shiny prize he gets for being an asshole”. It took the prof a good minute and a half to stop laughing, snorting really. It was great.

I also brought in a collage I made on fear as a part of American culture. He liked it enough that it is now proudly hanging on his office door. I may not be an artist who has sold anything- but at least I’m displayed somewhere.

Why the hell am I telling you all this. I have a favor to ask. Over the summer I am doing some writing for this proff on several books and a movie.. Because I am flat ass broke and saving every dollar i have so I don’t have to beg on the streets of Cancun- I need 2 books. If anybody local has them to let me borrow- I will gladly trade you some of my books. Ever wanted to learn about Italian Marxists? Cultural Hegemony? Activist priests like the Berrigan Brothers? I’ve got some stuff on the Religious Right, the Zapatistas, lots and lots of political theory from people like Samuel Huntington and Wallerstien. Much much more!

The books I am looking for are Cruddy by Linda Barry and Ham on Rye by Charles Bukowski.

Anyone- anyone?

I’m posting this for Little Flower- he deserves all the credit.

The big debate in Democratic circles right now is focused on the best strategy for reclaiming Congress. If Dems get control of one branch of Congress, someone could stop the Bush empire from doing too much more damage to the country and possibly uncover some of the bodies, maybe literally.

So is it wise to move to the center or energize the base? Democratic Leadership Council clones, Republicans in sheep clothing and Beltway journalists unanimously advise the former. But that’s not the formula that took the GOP into power.

Here’s former Republican operative Allen Raymond, interviewed in the Boston Globe after a three-month stint in jail for jamming Democratic phone lines during the 2002 elections, helping John Sununu win a seat in the Senate:

“A lot of people look at politics and see it as the guy who wins is the guy who
unifies the most people,” he said. “I would disagree. I would say the candidate
who wins is the candidate who polarizes the right bloc of voters. You always
want to polarize somebody.”

Raymond stressed that he was making no excuses for his role in the New Hampshire case; he pleaded guilty and told the judge he had done a “bad thing.” But he said he got caught up in an ultra-aggressive atmosphere in which he initially thought the decision to jam the phones “pushed the envelope” but was legal. He also said he had been reluctant to turn down a prominent official of the RNC, fearing that would cost him future opportunities from an organization that was becoming increasingly ruthless.

“Republicans have treated campaigns and politics as a business, and now are
treating public policy as a business, looking for the types of returns that you
get in business, passing legislation that has huge ramifications for business,”
he said. “It is very much being monetized, and the federal government is being
monetized under Republican majorities.”

So just to make sure you boys don’t forget- I thought I would pass along the Male Priviledge Checklist by Barry Deutsch at Alas, A Blog.

The Male Privilege Checklist
An Unabashed Imitation of an article by Peggy McIntosh

In 1990, Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay called “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. McIntosh observes that whites in the U.S. are “taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.” To illustrate these invisible systems, McIntosh wrote a list of 26 invisible privileges whites benefit from.

As McIntosh points out, men also tend to be unaware of their own privileges as men. In the spirit of McIntosh’s essay, I thought I’d compile a list similar to McIntosh’s, focusing on the invisible privileges benefiting men.

Since I first compiled it, the list has been posted several times on internet discussion groups. Very helpfully, many people have suggested additions to the checklist. More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too – being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things – but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes. Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that sometimes bad things happen to men.

In the end, however, it is men and not women who make the most money; men and not women who dominate the government and the corporate boards; men and not women who dominate virtually all of the most powerful positions of society. And it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape; who are the most likely to be poor; who are, on the whole, given the short end of patriarchy’s stick. As Marilyn Frye has argued, while men are harmed by patriarchy, women are oppressed by it.

Several critics have also argued that the list somehow victimizes women. I disagree; pointing out problems is not the same as perpetuating them. It is not a “victimizing” position to acknowledge that injustice exists; on the contrary, without that acknowledgement it isn’t possible to fight injustice.

An internet acquaintance of mine once wrote, “The first big privilege which whites, males, people in upper economic classes, the able bodied, the straight (I think one or two of those will cover most of us) can work to alleviate is the privilege to be oblivious to privilege.” This checklist is, I hope, a step towards helping men to give up the “first big privilege.”

The Male Privilege Checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).

3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).

8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.

9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).

12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.

15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see “the person in charge,” I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).

17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.

21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.

23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.

24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won’t make me an object of contempt or derision.

25. If I work in an office, I have the option of wearing a relatively value-neutral uniform that does not invite speculation about my sexuality or my gender conformity. (More).

26. My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time. (More).

27. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).

28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.

29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

31. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.

32. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.

33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.

34. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

35. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is usually pictured as being male.

36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.

37. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).

38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.

39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.

40. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.

41. On average, I am under less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).

42. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).

43. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.”

44. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.

45. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

There’s been lots of discussion about what constitutes religion or morality, but maybe we should define what a morally ideal society would include. What’s the line between an individual’s personal freedom and their responsibility to society as a whole? Where is the line that science shouldn’t cross- if there is one?

My personal ideal is choice- that we have the resources to make our own decisions and are free to choose how to live our own lives so long as it doesn’t inhibit someone else from their own choice. And I’ll add to it that the choice of an already existing person takes precedence over a potentially existing person.

I put in a permalink on posts (you might have noticed) but we really need a link back to the home page from archived or permalink posty windows. Blah- did that make sense? It did in my head but not here,

Anyways- I’ve been trying to turn the header image into a link but I am incapable.

Help me Obi DeeK Kinobe- You’re our only hope.

The queen, Mr. Cynic and I got into this little discussion stemming from the Moderate Christians need to restore image post that at this point has lead to the questions of: What is Religion? What is Morality.

Since it is after midnight, and I am still working on some nebulous coding, I leave the questions to everyone here. Of course, I will add more than my two cents worth as time allows, but I am sure everyone has a take on these not so simple queries.

The Red Queen never promised any of this would be easy!