...at least according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
DHSH has just proposed that anyone recieivng federal grant money be allowed to deny women access to abortion. And because there's so much debate over when life begins, they've left it up to individuals to make that determination. In the report, they state that since some individuals believe life begins when an egg and a sperm unite, but before the zygote implants in the uterus, hormonal methods of birth control are abortion. Nevermind that it's never been scientifically shown that any hormonal birth control method prevents implantation. Nevermind that a high precentage of fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out of a women's body during her period and would never implant anyway, without any birth control intervening. If accepted, this proposal means that any pharmacist or health care provider would have the right to refuse a woman access to the pill, patch, ring, and any other hormonal method of birth control, as well as emergency contraception.
Full story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/hhs-moves-to-define-contr_b_112887.html
Seriously, when did science become irrelevant in this country? And why the hell aren't more people pissed off about this?
7.16.2008
6.25.2008
MTV, travel and cultural insensitivity
MTV has a new reality show featuring the ultra-spoiled rich girls from My Super Sweet Sixteen. Apparently, their parents have gotten sick of putting up with their tantrums and whining. So the girls are being sent to third world countries for a week to learn...well, I'm not sure what exactly. You can watch the trailer for the show here: http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1587292&vid=232277
When I first heard about this, I thought it was an interesting idea for about three seconds. At first glance, it's easy to think that maybe these girls would learn something from this experience, even if they don't come out of it with a sense of the incredible privilege they've been born with. But then I thought some more, and then I watched the preview. And here are the problems I see with this idea.
1. The lack of meaningful change that's possible. These girls are spending one week in the countries they're being sent to. A week is barely enough time to get oriented and get the feel for another culture for a seasoned traveler. It's barely enough time to adjust to the time difference for half the places these girls are going. And for girls who've probably never stayed somewhere that wasn't a resort or five-star hotel, one week is nowhere near enough time for them to get over their expectations of service and comfort, much less start to reexamine their own lives and privilege.
2. The obnoxious American stereotype being reinforced. The host families for these girls are treated horribly and have their cultures, lifestyles and traditions insulted repeatedly. In the process, stereotypes about American tourists are reinforced, which pisses me off, and the host families are forced to endure yet another case of first-world privilege. In spite of what we like to think, American life isn't inherently superior to these people's lives, and as a basic matter of courtesy, you shouldn't insult the home, culture, country, or lifestyle of your hosts anywhere in the world. But instead of any of these issues being addressed, I'm betting that the girls will learn nothing, or some cheesy one-line statement like "people are poor and that's bad" or "you don't need money to be happy". So they'll come away with nothing, or worse, thinking they've learned something profound that amounts to nothing, and as they fly away, the host family will be sitting there thinking, "Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with that country?" Which they'll be completely justified in doing.
3. The idea that third-world countries are some sort of panacea for all issues that first-world teenagers have. The parents of these girls, instead of looking at the ways in which they've encouraged and enabled spoiled behavior, are assuming that the poor, hardworking villagers in whatever country the girls are being sent to a) are miraculously able and b) want to teach their daughters lessons about work and poverty that these girls should have been learning from childhood in their own homes, rich or not. As the original post on Racialicious (http://www.racialicious.com/2008/06/20/mtv-a-licious/#more-1596) pointed out, there are much better ways to give these girls a dose of reality. Have them support themselves on a minimum wage job for a month, or make them do some community service work. But the idea that sending them to a third-world country is the only way to "fix" them is offensive to those countries, ignores very real social problems in the US, and shifts the blame for their behavior from their parents and upbringing to American culture as a whole.
This isn't just true for this show. The sheer amount of programs where first-world teenagers have the opportunity to travel to third-world countries, do work, experience the culture and live with locals show that this belief is common. Of course these programs have upsides--they allow us to experience incredible things and connect with people across the world. And tourism is a large part of the economy of many developing countries. But I think in all this travel, first world tourists need to be incredibly careful about the assumptions they make about their host cultures.
Too often, I think travel to these countries gets simplified in one of two ways. The first is from the insensitive/unadventurous traveler who stays in resorts and never tries to do anything that involved interacting with locals. And the attitude they come away with is one of privilege, where locals exist to serve them, and any local culture and customs that haven't been co-opted by tourism are stupid, irrelevant or otherwise inferior. Along with this attitude comes and general lack of interest in learning about and appreciating other cultures. Sample behavior: on my Costa Rica trip, one of the adult chaperones and I were discussing languages and travel. I said I'd like to learn Japanese at some point so I could travel to Japan. She responded, "What's the point? They all speak English now anyways." She also got incredibly frustrated when the clerk at a grocery store didn't understand her requests in English and before she finally surrendered and allowed me to translate.
The second way tourists simplify their experiences comes from the liberal, young neo-hippie demographic who travels to escape the consumerism and materialism of American culture. This is the groups that romanticizes the places they go, rhapsodizing about the beautiful simplicity of life and ranting about the evils of corporate America. I admit, I've been guilty of this. When I returned from Costa Rica, I was feeling very anti-American culture and really wanted to go back and live the happy, simple life that I saw there. But this view is only a small part of the picture. It's easy to assume that the families who treated us so kindly in developing countries have a perfect life or that they're free from the worries about work and our future that we have in the US. And to some extent, this view makes sense--studies have shown that the work-related stress and illness experienced by many corporate workers in the US isn't anywhere near as pervasive in other parts of the world. But this view ignores the very real challenges and problems faced by those in developing countries--lack of access to clean water and medical care, increased prevalence of infectious diseases, malnutrition, corrupt government, civil war, and others--issues where Americans fare much better, on average.
The solution to this, I think, is simple. When you travel to another country, listen. Don't make assumptions about what people think or want. Understand their country and culture from their point of view. Don't tell them how to live their life, don't assume their life is better or worse than yours. And I'm not saying don't judge anything. Because in a travel situation, both parties have the opportunity to learn from each other. In Guatemala, I was lucky enough to get firsthand insight from my host mom and language teacher about their opinions of the sort of service work travel programs that come to Guatemala from the US. This was judgement about an aspect of my culture, but it was incredibly interesting to hear their perspectives and discuss them. Also, on the reforestation work team, some of the Guatemalan teenagers were burying the plastic bags that the trees came in next to the trees in the dirt. The GV kids on that work team took the opportunity to explain to them that the bags should be thrown away and that burying them in the ground in the forest wasn't a good method of disposal. Getting other people to think or teaching them something is always a good thing. But do it in a way that doesn't imply the superiority of your culture, ideas, or country.
I think the attitude of a good traveler is best summarized by this quote, which GV hammered into our heads in Guatemala. An aborigine activist once said, "If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you understand that your liberation is tied to mine, then let's work together."
When I first heard about this, I thought it was an interesting idea for about three seconds. At first glance, it's easy to think that maybe these girls would learn something from this experience, even if they don't come out of it with a sense of the incredible privilege they've been born with. But then I thought some more, and then I watched the preview. And here are the problems I see with this idea.
1. The lack of meaningful change that's possible. These girls are spending one week in the countries they're being sent to. A week is barely enough time to get oriented and get the feel for another culture for a seasoned traveler. It's barely enough time to adjust to the time difference for half the places these girls are going. And for girls who've probably never stayed somewhere that wasn't a resort or five-star hotel, one week is nowhere near enough time for them to get over their expectations of service and comfort, much less start to reexamine their own lives and privilege.
2. The obnoxious American stereotype being reinforced. The host families for these girls are treated horribly and have their cultures, lifestyles and traditions insulted repeatedly. In the process, stereotypes about American tourists are reinforced, which pisses me off, and the host families are forced to endure yet another case of first-world privilege. In spite of what we like to think, American life isn't inherently superior to these people's lives, and as a basic matter of courtesy, you shouldn't insult the home, culture, country, or lifestyle of your hosts anywhere in the world. But instead of any of these issues being addressed, I'm betting that the girls will learn nothing, or some cheesy one-line statement like "people are poor and that's bad" or "you don't need money to be happy". So they'll come away with nothing, or worse, thinking they've learned something profound that amounts to nothing, and as they fly away, the host family will be sitting there thinking, "Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with that country?" Which they'll be completely justified in doing.
3. The idea that third-world countries are some sort of panacea for all issues that first-world teenagers have. The parents of these girls, instead of looking at the ways in which they've encouraged and enabled spoiled behavior, are assuming that the poor, hardworking villagers in whatever country the girls are being sent to a) are miraculously able and b) want to teach their daughters lessons about work and poverty that these girls should have been learning from childhood in their own homes, rich or not. As the original post on Racialicious (http://www.racialicious.com/2008/06/20/mtv-a-licious/#more-1596) pointed out, there are much better ways to give these girls a dose of reality. Have them support themselves on a minimum wage job for a month, or make them do some community service work. But the idea that sending them to a third-world country is the only way to "fix" them is offensive to those countries, ignores very real social problems in the US, and shifts the blame for their behavior from their parents and upbringing to American culture as a whole.
This isn't just true for this show. The sheer amount of programs where first-world teenagers have the opportunity to travel to third-world countries, do work, experience the culture and live with locals show that this belief is common. Of course these programs have upsides--they allow us to experience incredible things and connect with people across the world. And tourism is a large part of the economy of many developing countries. But I think in all this travel, first world tourists need to be incredibly careful about the assumptions they make about their host cultures.
Too often, I think travel to these countries gets simplified in one of two ways. The first is from the insensitive/unadventurous traveler who stays in resorts and never tries to do anything that involved interacting with locals. And the attitude they come away with is one of privilege, where locals exist to serve them, and any local culture and customs that haven't been co-opted by tourism are stupid, irrelevant or otherwise inferior. Along with this attitude comes and general lack of interest in learning about and appreciating other cultures. Sample behavior: on my Costa Rica trip, one of the adult chaperones and I were discussing languages and travel. I said I'd like to learn Japanese at some point so I could travel to Japan. She responded, "What's the point? They all speak English now anyways." She also got incredibly frustrated when the clerk at a grocery store didn't understand her requests in English and before she finally surrendered and allowed me to translate.
The second way tourists simplify their experiences comes from the liberal, young neo-hippie demographic who travels to escape the consumerism and materialism of American culture. This is the groups that romanticizes the places they go, rhapsodizing about the beautiful simplicity of life and ranting about the evils of corporate America. I admit, I've been guilty of this. When I returned from Costa Rica, I was feeling very anti-American culture and really wanted to go back and live the happy, simple life that I saw there. But this view is only a small part of the picture. It's easy to assume that the families who treated us so kindly in developing countries have a perfect life or that they're free from the worries about work and our future that we have in the US. And to some extent, this view makes sense--studies have shown that the work-related stress and illness experienced by many corporate workers in the US isn't anywhere near as pervasive in other parts of the world. But this view ignores the very real challenges and problems faced by those in developing countries--lack of access to clean water and medical care, increased prevalence of infectious diseases, malnutrition, corrupt government, civil war, and others--issues where Americans fare much better, on average.
The solution to this, I think, is simple. When you travel to another country, listen. Don't make assumptions about what people think or want. Understand their country and culture from their point of view. Don't tell them how to live their life, don't assume their life is better or worse than yours. And I'm not saying don't judge anything. Because in a travel situation, both parties have the opportunity to learn from each other. In Guatemala, I was lucky enough to get firsthand insight from my host mom and language teacher about their opinions of the sort of service work travel programs that come to Guatemala from the US. This was judgement about an aspect of my culture, but it was incredibly interesting to hear their perspectives and discuss them. Also, on the reforestation work team, some of the Guatemalan teenagers were burying the plastic bags that the trees came in next to the trees in the dirt. The GV kids on that work team took the opportunity to explain to them that the bags should be thrown away and that burying them in the ground in the forest wasn't a good method of disposal. Getting other people to think or teaching them something is always a good thing. But do it in a way that doesn't imply the superiority of your culture, ideas, or country.
I think the attitude of a good traveler is best summarized by this quote, which GV hammered into our heads in Guatemala. An aborigine activist once said, "If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you understand that your liberation is tied to mine, then let's work together."
5.27.2008
Media commentary on Clinton
Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U
Think about it.
I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our next president, for a variety of reasons. I think Obama will do a better job of implementing an effective, sustainable environmental policy, for one. My dislike of her is based on her policies, and several of the comments she and her supporters have made regarding racial issues in America.
But to look at the media coverage of her campaign and the way she's been treated absolutely sickens me. The top two reasons not to elect her, if you listen to the top news anchors and media personalities in this country, appear to be 1) she's a bitch, and 2) she will have PMS, which will interfere with her being macho enough to lead us into another quagmire in the Middle East. Aside from the fact that these commentators are missing a basic biological reality (6o year old women are generally post-menopausal), the level of sexism that is ingrained in our media and national consciousness is disgustingly high.
Why is this behavior acceptable? I know the lowest common denominator sells in media, but level of sexism that we've decided is acceptable is past the point of humor, reasonable disagreement or even shock value. I can understand arguments that calling a woman attractive isn't sexist, and while I disagree, I don't think it's realistic to expect that male anchors will stop commenting on what female politicians are wearing anytime soon. But why are statements so blatantly contrary to fact--statements like "she's only famous because her husband slept around"--acceptable from any respectable journalist?
When commentators do this--generalize, lie, stereotype, and degrade--they aren't just attacking Hillary. They're sending a message to every woman in America: We don't want to hear your voice. We don't think you're capable of leadership. You are not, and do not need to be, represented.
Faced with this, what can we do to change it? Prove them wrong. Never sit silent. Never let oppression go unanswered. Refuse to be treated like a second-class citizen. Maybe one of these days, we'll join Nicaragua, Haiti and the UK on the list of countries that have had female heads of state. And though that won't end sexism, it will go a long way towards it.
Think about it.
I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our next president, for a variety of reasons. I think Obama will do a better job of implementing an effective, sustainable environmental policy, for one. My dislike of her is based on her policies, and several of the comments she and her supporters have made regarding racial issues in America.
But to look at the media coverage of her campaign and the way she's been treated absolutely sickens me. The top two reasons not to elect her, if you listen to the top news anchors and media personalities in this country, appear to be 1) she's a bitch, and 2) she will have PMS, which will interfere with her being macho enough to lead us into another quagmire in the Middle East. Aside from the fact that these commentators are missing a basic biological reality (6o year old women are generally post-menopausal), the level of sexism that is ingrained in our media and national consciousness is disgustingly high.
Why is this behavior acceptable? I know the lowest common denominator sells in media, but level of sexism that we've decided is acceptable is past the point of humor, reasonable disagreement or even shock value. I can understand arguments that calling a woman attractive isn't sexist, and while I disagree, I don't think it's realistic to expect that male anchors will stop commenting on what female politicians are wearing anytime soon. But why are statements so blatantly contrary to fact--statements like "she's only famous because her husband slept around"--acceptable from any respectable journalist?
When commentators do this--generalize, lie, stereotype, and degrade--they aren't just attacking Hillary. They're sending a message to every woman in America: We don't want to hear your voice. We don't think you're capable of leadership. You are not, and do not need to be, represented.
Faced with this, what can we do to change it? Prove them wrong. Never sit silent. Never let oppression go unanswered. Refuse to be treated like a second-class citizen. Maybe one of these days, we'll join Nicaragua, Haiti and the UK on the list of countries that have had female heads of state. And though that won't end sexism, it will go a long way towards it.
5.22.2008
The next step towards sustainibility: food.
Local foods. Sustainable eating. Awareness of where your food comes from and what that means for the earth we live on. It's the next step for the environmentally conscious, those of us who already take the bus, skip showers to be outside and have been vegetarians since before it was cool.
I finally finished The Omnivore's Dilemma, and I'm taking a long, hard look at what I eat and why. My environmentalism, prior to now, has largely consisted of rhetoric and changes only insofar as they didn't require effort. Yes, I've been a vegetarian since I was nine, but that really doesn't take much work. I drive everywhere. I don't take particularly short showers. I can justify it all to myself, and I'm comfortable with my lifestyle for the most part (other than the size of my house, but that's not what we're talking about right now). Except for my food. Because there are glaring inconsistencies between what I want to be and what I eat. In spite of the rhetoric, a good percentage of my daily caloric intake comes from high fructose corn syrup, frozen foods imported from all over the country and produce imported from Latin America.
With food prices rising, with the amount of petroleum it takes to grow crops and ship them across the country, I can no longer justify eating the way I do. For my own health, I can no longer justify my diet to myself. In spite of the fact that I don't live by myself and can't control everything I eat, I'm going to try. Starting now, I want to implement these rules for myself:
1) Frozen food entrees are not an acceptable meal. Once we run out of the ones in the freezer, I will not buy any more.
2) I will not eat more than one dessert item (sweet stuff, potato chips) per day, in a reasonable sized portion, and not more than one other pseudo-dessert item (bagel/pita chips, goldfish, etc.) per day. Exceptions for parties and special occasions.
3) Eggo waffles are not food. Seriously.
4) All food which can be produced locally should be bought at farmer's markets in Seattle.
5) Whenever I have the option, I will only eat produce and food that is locally in season.
6) Tea should be made from stuff I illegally steal from Discovery Park, not from herbs picked by people living on other continents and paid substandard wages.
7) No more Starbucks. Coffee should be GV coffee and I should learn how to make frappucino-resembling beverages myself.
8) No more fish that isn't local and caught in environmentally-friendly ways. Exceptions if I'm traveling in redneck states and there's no other food I can eat.
I don't expect to follow any of those rules perfectly. Why bother? Because change can happen, gradually, and I know I am capable of changing my diet far beyond what I think is possible. When I went vegetarian, hot dogs were my favorite food, and sushi was a close second. It took me a few months to quit the red meat, because I loved it so much, and two more years to give up fish. But I did it. And now, I can look back and know that it was worth it. If I get into these habits now, paying attention to my food and developing consciousness, it will be second nature by the time I'm living on my own. Or so I hope. And I know I'll be better, healthier, and greener for it.
Incidentally, I should also learn how to cook. But unlike eating locally, that probably is going to take a miracle.
I finally finished The Omnivore's Dilemma, and I'm taking a long, hard look at what I eat and why. My environmentalism, prior to now, has largely consisted of rhetoric and changes only insofar as they didn't require effort. Yes, I've been a vegetarian since I was nine, but that really doesn't take much work. I drive everywhere. I don't take particularly short showers. I can justify it all to myself, and I'm comfortable with my lifestyle for the most part (other than the size of my house, but that's not what we're talking about right now). Except for my food. Because there are glaring inconsistencies between what I want to be and what I eat. In spite of the rhetoric, a good percentage of my daily caloric intake comes from high fructose corn syrup, frozen foods imported from all over the country and produce imported from Latin America.
With food prices rising, with the amount of petroleum it takes to grow crops and ship them across the country, I can no longer justify eating the way I do. For my own health, I can no longer justify my diet to myself. In spite of the fact that I don't live by myself and can't control everything I eat, I'm going to try. Starting now, I want to implement these rules for myself:
1) Frozen food entrees are not an acceptable meal. Once we run out of the ones in the freezer, I will not buy any more.
2) I will not eat more than one dessert item (sweet stuff, potato chips) per day, in a reasonable sized portion, and not more than one other pseudo-dessert item (bagel/pita chips, goldfish, etc.) per day. Exceptions for parties and special occasions.
3) Eggo waffles are not food. Seriously.
4) All food which can be produced locally should be bought at farmer's markets in Seattle.
5) Whenever I have the option, I will only eat produce and food that is locally in season.
6) Tea should be made from stuff I illegally steal from Discovery Park, not from herbs picked by people living on other continents and paid substandard wages.
7) No more Starbucks. Coffee should be GV coffee and I should learn how to make frappucino-resembling beverages myself.
8) No more fish that isn't local and caught in environmentally-friendly ways. Exceptions if I'm traveling in redneck states and there's no other food I can eat.
I don't expect to follow any of those rules perfectly. Why bother? Because change can happen, gradually, and I know I am capable of changing my diet far beyond what I think is possible. When I went vegetarian, hot dogs were my favorite food, and sushi was a close second. It took me a few months to quit the red meat, because I loved it so much, and two more years to give up fish. But I did it. And now, I can look back and know that it was worth it. If I get into these habits now, paying attention to my food and developing consciousness, it will be second nature by the time I'm living on my own. Or so I hope. And I know I'll be better, healthier, and greener for it.
Incidentally, I should also learn how to cook. But unlike eating locally, that probably is going to take a miracle.
4.04.2008
Limbaugh on feminism & torture music
Rush Limbaugh has some shit to say about Democrats, Hillary, and feminists.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804010009?f=h_latest
I kind of wish I were capable of ignoring comments like this. Because there will always be the Pat Robertsons, with the whole, "Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." And the Ann Coulters, pointing out that if women couldn't vote, the Democrats would never win another election, and then saying, "It's kind of a personal fantasy of mine."
I understand disagreeing about abortion. I understand thinking that feminists take things too far sometimes. But to discount a movement that has done so much for this country...I can't understand that, outside of the conclusion that every single conservative pundit out there doesn't actually believe what they're saying and just knows what sells well. And I don't think that's true. I honestly think that most of them believe what they're saying. How can Ann Coulter believe that restricting women's' right to vote would accomplish anything positive? I would never in my life say that the vote of white men earning $100,000 a year or more should be taken away. I wouldn't say that evangelical Christians should be barred from voting, even though doing so would solve the same "problem" for my side of the aisle. I believe the solution to an electorate that doesn't vote the way I would like is more information and more education, not curtailing their rights. I know that probably wasn't a serious comment. But I still wonder how the Coulters and O'Reillys and Limbaughs of the world can go home happy with themselves and the world. And if they can't, then why are they doing what they're doing?
On the off-chance the Rush Limbaugh actually wants to learn something and wasn't just trying to get some controversy points, I wrote him this letter (as an 18-year old so I could pretend that my opinion about the election actually matters):
Mr. Limbaugh,
As an eighteen year old Democratic feminist, I would like to correct some of the misstatements you made in your radio broadcast on April 1st. Not all female voters in the Democratic Party—not even those who self-identify as feminists—necessarily support Ms. Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Nor is the party as divided as you claim. While I would prefer to see Mr. Obama as the nominee for the party, I would be happy to vote for either candidate, and happy to see either as president. My desire to see Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton in the White House does not come from the feeling that I am owed any sort of “due”, by society or the party. It comes from my belief that their policies on health care, Iraq, and environmental issues will lead America in the direction I would like to see it heading.
I am troubled by your comments about feminists, as I believe they display a fundamental misunderstanding of what the feminist movement stands for. Feminism believes in allowing women to choose the course of their own lives and calls attention to the prejudice and discrimination that has and continues to, stop women from achieving equality. Though feminists support a woman’s right to choose an abortion, no feminist believes abortion is some type of “due” owed to the movement. Feminists work actively, every day, to promote education about safer sex practices precisely to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies occurring in the US. Not all feminists are the man-hating, career-driven women you make them out to be. My mother, who raised me to be a proud feminist, has only married once, never had an abortion, and stayed home to raise me and my brother.
I understand that as a conservative radio personality, you are naturally critical of the Democratic Party. I am aware that you disagree with the feminist movement on many key issues. However, I would ask that you remember that there is a difference between commentary and falsification. If you want to criticize the Democratic Party, the feminist movement, or Hillary Clinton’s supporters, by all means do so. But please don’t make sweeping generalizations about the feminist movement or women as a whole when you do. To portray such a diverse group of people in such a stereotypical way does everyone a disservice—it adds to misconceptions, illegitimizes your point, and does nothing to elevate the level of political discourse in this country.
Respectfully,
Rachel Alexander
I'm sure he won't reply, and if he does, it will be a form letter. So really, that was pointless. But who knows? Maybe he actually reads his email.
In other news, Mother Jones magazine has published a list, leaked from the US government, of specific songs that have been used in US military prisons to shock detainees and "drown out screams". On the list--Born in the USA, American Pie, the Barney theme song, White America and some others. Check out the link here: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2008/03/torture-playlist.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804010009?f=h_latest
I kind of wish I were capable of ignoring comments like this. Because there will always be the Pat Robertsons, with the whole, "Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." And the Ann Coulters, pointing out that if women couldn't vote, the Democrats would never win another election, and then saying, "It's kind of a personal fantasy of mine."
I understand disagreeing about abortion. I understand thinking that feminists take things too far sometimes. But to discount a movement that has done so much for this country...I can't understand that, outside of the conclusion that every single conservative pundit out there doesn't actually believe what they're saying and just knows what sells well. And I don't think that's true. I honestly think that most of them believe what they're saying. How can Ann Coulter believe that restricting women's' right to vote would accomplish anything positive? I would never in my life say that the vote of white men earning $100,000 a year or more should be taken away. I wouldn't say that evangelical Christians should be barred from voting, even though doing so would solve the same "problem" for my side of the aisle. I believe the solution to an electorate that doesn't vote the way I would like is more information and more education, not curtailing their rights. I know that probably wasn't a serious comment. But I still wonder how the Coulters and O'Reillys and Limbaughs of the world can go home happy with themselves and the world. And if they can't, then why are they doing what they're doing?
On the off-chance the Rush Limbaugh actually wants to learn something and wasn't just trying to get some controversy points, I wrote him this letter (as an 18-year old so I could pretend that my opinion about the election actually matters):
Mr. Limbaugh,
As an eighteen year old Democratic feminist, I would like to correct some of the misstatements you made in your radio broadcast on April 1st. Not all female voters in the Democratic Party—not even those who self-identify as feminists—necessarily support Ms. Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Nor is the party as divided as you claim. While I would prefer to see Mr. Obama as the nominee for the party, I would be happy to vote for either candidate, and happy to see either as president. My desire to see Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton in the White House does not come from the feeling that I am owed any sort of “due”, by society or the party. It comes from my belief that their policies on health care, Iraq, and environmental issues will lead America in the direction I would like to see it heading.
I am troubled by your comments about feminists, as I believe they display a fundamental misunderstanding of what the feminist movement stands for. Feminism believes in allowing women to choose the course of their own lives and calls attention to the prejudice and discrimination that has and continues to, stop women from achieving equality. Though feminists support a woman’s right to choose an abortion, no feminist believes abortion is some type of “due” owed to the movement. Feminists work actively, every day, to promote education about safer sex practices precisely to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies occurring in the US. Not all feminists are the man-hating, career-driven women you make them out to be. My mother, who raised me to be a proud feminist, has only married once, never had an abortion, and stayed home to raise me and my brother.
I understand that as a conservative radio personality, you are naturally critical of the Democratic Party. I am aware that you disagree with the feminist movement on many key issues. However, I would ask that you remember that there is a difference between commentary and falsification. If you want to criticize the Democratic Party, the feminist movement, or Hillary Clinton’s supporters, by all means do so. But please don’t make sweeping generalizations about the feminist movement or women as a whole when you do. To portray such a diverse group of people in such a stereotypical way does everyone a disservice—it adds to misconceptions, illegitimizes your point, and does nothing to elevate the level of political discourse in this country.
Respectfully,
Rachel Alexander
I'm sure he won't reply, and if he does, it will be a form letter. So really, that was pointless. But who knows? Maybe he actually reads his email.
In other news, Mother Jones magazine has published a list, leaked from the US government, of specific songs that have been used in US military prisons to shock detainees and "drown out screams". On the list--Born in the USA, American Pie, the Barney theme song, White America and some others. Check out the link here: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2008/03/torture-playlist.html
3.13.2008
The DNC
No doubt about it--the 2008 Democratic National Convention will be unlike any other political convention in history. The race is intense, the stakes are high, the candidates aren't all white men. I want to be there, because I think it will be an amazing, crazy whirlwind experience. I want to be there because I believe I will learn something important--maybe about democracy and hope and vision for America, and if not that, some damn useful stuff about manipulative propaganda. Either way, I know it will be worth going to.
I was talking to one of our chaperones at Stevens--a very liberal environmentalist, of the sort who thinks the Democrats are only slightly, if at all, better than the Republicans. She was telling me how she was at the DNC in 2004, and I was like, "Oh, that's cool, how'd you get to go?" and she said, "I was protesting." And then she told me how the delegates to the convention had been given these boxes of Kraft macaroni and cheese with the pasta shaped like donkeys. And the protesters were angry about that (Kraft is owned by Altria, if I'm not mistaken, which is the same company that makes Marlboros), but most of them had no money and were starving and hadn't eaten much during the convention. And they were asking the delegates, please, to just give them the mac and cheese, and the delegates refused.
I could go to the DNC this summer, as a representative from JSA. I could listen to speeches and discuss and debate with other JSAers and eat nice, fancy food when I'm told to do so. I could sit and hear about change we can believe in and hope for America, and I could almost believe it. Almost.
But there would be protesters, from a lot of the causes I identify myself with. And I have to say, looking in their faces and acting like a Democratic president is a symbol of hope for America--that would be a lie. Hillary's served on the board for Wal-Mart. ExxonMobile has contributed more money to Obama than any other presidential candidate from either party. And I can't shake that, when I consider the future of this country.
I want, so much to believe. I want to listen to Obama's speeches and think that he will follow through on every word he says. I want to look at Hillary and believe that she could bring significant, meaningful change to the White House. I want to go the DNC and feel inspired and excited about the future of this country. But I know if I go, especially with the sort of kids who are in JSA--I'll feel sick. Not always, because part of me can believe, just a bit. But I'll walk away from that convention with a bitter taste in my mouth.
I'm beginning to think that real change can only be radical change--a socialist revolution, the election of a libertarian president who abolishes government as we know it, or something else equally extreme. I don't know what I want from this election, from this country, from the world in this age of globalization. I know what I'd like to see, but I don't know what's possible, what it would take to get there. I think at some point in my lifetime, that change will come, because of increasing human realization. But maybe change is just an illusion, a word that's lost all meaning from being used as filler in campaign speeches.
In spite of my misgivings, I will do everything humanly possible to go to the DNC. Because no matter who wins or what happens, there will be some great pictures.
I was talking to one of our chaperones at Stevens--a very liberal environmentalist, of the sort who thinks the Democrats are only slightly, if at all, better than the Republicans. She was telling me how she was at the DNC in 2004, and I was like, "Oh, that's cool, how'd you get to go?" and she said, "I was protesting." And then she told me how the delegates to the convention had been given these boxes of Kraft macaroni and cheese with the pasta shaped like donkeys. And the protesters were angry about that (Kraft is owned by Altria, if I'm not mistaken, which is the same company that makes Marlboros), but most of them had no money and were starving and hadn't eaten much during the convention. And they were asking the delegates, please, to just give them the mac and cheese, and the delegates refused.
I could go to the DNC this summer, as a representative from JSA. I could listen to speeches and discuss and debate with other JSAers and eat nice, fancy food when I'm told to do so. I could sit and hear about change we can believe in and hope for America, and I could almost believe it. Almost.
But there would be protesters, from a lot of the causes I identify myself with. And I have to say, looking in their faces and acting like a Democratic president is a symbol of hope for America--that would be a lie. Hillary's served on the board for Wal-Mart. ExxonMobile has contributed more money to Obama than any other presidential candidate from either party. And I can't shake that, when I consider the future of this country.
I want, so much to believe. I want to listen to Obama's speeches and think that he will follow through on every word he says. I want to look at Hillary and believe that she could bring significant, meaningful change to the White House. I want to go the DNC and feel inspired and excited about the future of this country. But I know if I go, especially with the sort of kids who are in JSA--I'll feel sick. Not always, because part of me can believe, just a bit. But I'll walk away from that convention with a bitter taste in my mouth.
I'm beginning to think that real change can only be radical change--a socialist revolution, the election of a libertarian president who abolishes government as we know it, or something else equally extreme. I don't know what I want from this election, from this country, from the world in this age of globalization. I know what I'd like to see, but I don't know what's possible, what it would take to get there. I think at some point in my lifetime, that change will come, because of increasing human realization. But maybe change is just an illusion, a word that's lost all meaning from being used as filler in campaign speeches.
In spite of my misgivings, I will do everything humanly possible to go to the DNC. Because no matter who wins or what happens, there will be some great pictures.
2.24.2008
Wolves, politics and human arrogance
They are trying to take my wolves away. Our wolves. The wolves I've spent three years tracking, thinking about, respecting and learning from. The wolves who have stunned us into silence so many times through what they choose to reveal to us when we truly take the time to listen, be patient and observe.
When I first heard, I was shocked. Angry. And then I thought some more, and I was filled with an incredible sadness. Because this has been happening for so long. We've been moving this way since the beginning of human existence, and we've been moving this way so quickly in recent years. And I can always feel for the environment in the abstract and object to its degradation, its subjugation, by and for human arrogance. But this has a face on it. I know these wolves--seven or eight of them, at least. I've seen them in action, studied their footprints for hours, heard them howling in the dead of night over a frost-covered meadow and seen what their teeth can do to another animal. And I have such a deep respect for them because of everything they've allowed me to experience.
I understand a rancher, a farmer, who objects to the wolves because they eat livestock. I understand thinking they should be killed if they're caught in the act. And while I don't agree--I'm a bigger fan of the Defenders of Wildlife's efforts to compensate farmers for damage wolves do to their property--I can understand their motivations, their reasoning.
This, to me, makes no sense. A desire to kill wolves for no reason, just because they're there. The government, by delisting the wolves, is making an incredible assumption. They're asserting that humans have an unconditional right to kill other species so long as their actual existence as a whole is not threatened. Think about that. Every regulation in place that says when you can and can't hunt animals, and which ones you can hunt, is there only to preserve the species as a whole. It lacks any concern for an individual animal's welfare or right to exist. An animal only has a right to exist if there are so few of its species left that its death would threaten survival as a whole. And this fundamental assumption, about the human right to control nature, is not being questioned by either side. The groups planning to start a lawsuit for violation of the Endangered Species Act are debating about the number of wolves that would constitute a sustainable population, not whether we have a right to kill a population even if it's self-sustaining. Just think about that for a minute. Where did we get this idea from? Why does it run through society almost unquestioned?
The governor of Idaho has said that when the delisting is official, one month from now, he plans to allow open season on wolves in Idaho. And he's said that he will be the first to pick up a gun to go shoot them. He wants, he's said, a complete end to all the wolves in Idaho.
Close your eyes. Picture a world in which anyone who wants, who has a gun, can walk into a forest and shoot a wolf on sight, just for existing. Look into that wolf's eyes, the eyes of the pack as one of their own falls in a pool of blood. Look at the hunter, watching. And the wolves, staring back, trying to understand. Look at the dead wolf, which will lie there until its body is reclaimed by the earth, since the hunter has no use for it.
This vision of our earth is enough to make me lose most of my faith in humanity. What keeps me from doing that is the people in these states, the very same ranchers and farmers. In spite of the losses some of them have incurred because of the wolves, an overwhelming number of them are opposed to these new policies. And we can stand with them, united. Think back again. Picture that world. If it's not what you want, then do something about it.
When I first heard, I was shocked. Angry. And then I thought some more, and I was filled with an incredible sadness. Because this has been happening for so long. We've been moving this way since the beginning of human existence, and we've been moving this way so quickly in recent years. And I can always feel for the environment in the abstract and object to its degradation, its subjugation, by and for human arrogance. But this has a face on it. I know these wolves--seven or eight of them, at least. I've seen them in action, studied their footprints for hours, heard them howling in the dead of night over a frost-covered meadow and seen what their teeth can do to another animal. And I have such a deep respect for them because of everything they've allowed me to experience.
I understand a rancher, a farmer, who objects to the wolves because they eat livestock. I understand thinking they should be killed if they're caught in the act. And while I don't agree--I'm a bigger fan of the Defenders of Wildlife's efforts to compensate farmers for damage wolves do to their property--I can understand their motivations, their reasoning.
This, to me, makes no sense. A desire to kill wolves for no reason, just because they're there. The government, by delisting the wolves, is making an incredible assumption. They're asserting that humans have an unconditional right to kill other species so long as their actual existence as a whole is not threatened. Think about that. Every regulation in place that says when you can and can't hunt animals, and which ones you can hunt, is there only to preserve the species as a whole. It lacks any concern for an individual animal's welfare or right to exist. An animal only has a right to exist if there are so few of its species left that its death would threaten survival as a whole. And this fundamental assumption, about the human right to control nature, is not being questioned by either side. The groups planning to start a lawsuit for violation of the Endangered Species Act are debating about the number of wolves that would constitute a sustainable population, not whether we have a right to kill a population even if it's self-sustaining. Just think about that for a minute. Where did we get this idea from? Why does it run through society almost unquestioned?
The governor of Idaho has said that when the delisting is official, one month from now, he plans to allow open season on wolves in Idaho. And he's said that he will be the first to pick up a gun to go shoot them. He wants, he's said, a complete end to all the wolves in Idaho.
Close your eyes. Picture a world in which anyone who wants, who has a gun, can walk into a forest and shoot a wolf on sight, just for existing. Look into that wolf's eyes, the eyes of the pack as one of their own falls in a pool of blood. Look at the hunter, watching. And the wolves, staring back, trying to understand. Look at the dead wolf, which will lie there until its body is reclaimed by the earth, since the hunter has no use for it.
This vision of our earth is enough to make me lose most of my faith in humanity. What keeps me from doing that is the people in these states, the very same ranchers and farmers. In spite of the losses some of them have incurred because of the wolves, an overwhelming number of them are opposed to these new policies. And we can stand with them, united. Think back again. Picture that world. If it's not what you want, then do something about it.
1.27.2008
Female sexuality.
When I say I'm a feminist, I mean it. Feminism isn't just about equal rights, equal pay for equal work. It's about something more fundamental--the right of a woman to be respected, entitled to her own opinions and able to persue her pleasure before anyone else's without being judged or condemned for it. Given that, some media things have pissed me off this last week...
So, I was watching American Idol. Yes, it's American Idol. Yes, I have no reasonable expectation that it would ever be feminist in any way, shape or form. But nevertheless...one of the hopefuls who auditioned before the judges was a sixteen year old girl who was part of a youth group that gave talks about abstinence and why it's best to wait to have sex until you're married. She told this to the judges, who reacted with exclamations about how cute that was, how great she was, and how sweet and nice of a person she was. Naturally, I have some issues with this. One is that the judges of American Idol are pretty clearly not advocates of abstinence until marriage. Paula and Randy have been divorced, and Simon has never been married (but was accused of cheating on a girlfriend). So why do they find it good and cute that this girl is advocating a position they don't agree with?
This is symptomatic of some of the largest problems concerning sexuality, especially female sexuality, in American society. First, it's accepting the premise that sexual pleasure is inherently sinful and wrong unless it's connected with a bunch of other ideals like love, commitment and monogamy--not a premise that I accept in any way. Plenty of people have sex everyday in a casual, non-comitted, non-monogamous way. Are they wrong? Sinful? I don't think so. Which is a worse sin--a woman who meets a guy in a bar, has consensual sex with him in a context where both parties recognize that this is not part of a long-term relationship and uses protection, or a man who marries a woman until death do them part, sleeps with her even though he doesn't want to and represses the fact that he's gay because he believes he has to fit a certain mold? Generally, I tend to adhere to Dan Savage's set of sexual values--if you're adults, it's consensual, and no animals are involved, then you're good.
Secondly, and more importantly, it's condemning female pursuit of pleasure. The evangelical Christian wait-until-marriage doctrine generally tends to reject things like women taking leadership roles, women articulating their own needs and desires, and all that good stuff that healthy sexual relationships are based on. Think about what would have happened on American Idol if a young woman had walked in and told the judges that she volunteered for a nonprofit education group that teaches girls how to be aware of their bodies, their sexual potential, masturbate, and articulate what they want and need sexually. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have gotten the "that's so sweet!" treatment. And for that matter, I can't think of a single instance where I've heard of a nonprofit that does just that, though I've sure heard of plenty teaching abstinence and repression.
So, women need to be respected. And that includes that girl and her opinion that sex before marriage is wrong. That's her belief, and that's fine. But we need equally vocal groups countering that opinion and being vocal about a woman's right to control her own body in every sense. We need groups telling girls that they are allowed to have sexual desires and fantasies--it's not just a guy thing. We need a society that is more tolerant of sexually liberated women--no more Madonna-whore dichotomy. And we need better TV shows than American Idol, but that's a whole seperate issue.
So, I was watching American Idol. Yes, it's American Idol. Yes, I have no reasonable expectation that it would ever be feminist in any way, shape or form. But nevertheless...one of the hopefuls who auditioned before the judges was a sixteen year old girl who was part of a youth group that gave talks about abstinence and why it's best to wait to have sex until you're married. She told this to the judges, who reacted with exclamations about how cute that was, how great she was, and how sweet and nice of a person she was. Naturally, I have some issues with this. One is that the judges of American Idol are pretty clearly not advocates of abstinence until marriage. Paula and Randy have been divorced, and Simon has never been married (but was accused of cheating on a girlfriend). So why do they find it good and cute that this girl is advocating a position they don't agree with?
This is symptomatic of some of the largest problems concerning sexuality, especially female sexuality, in American society. First, it's accepting the premise that sexual pleasure is inherently sinful and wrong unless it's connected with a bunch of other ideals like love, commitment and monogamy--not a premise that I accept in any way. Plenty of people have sex everyday in a casual, non-comitted, non-monogamous way. Are they wrong? Sinful? I don't think so. Which is a worse sin--a woman who meets a guy in a bar, has consensual sex with him in a context where both parties recognize that this is not part of a long-term relationship and uses protection, or a man who marries a woman until death do them part, sleeps with her even though he doesn't want to and represses the fact that he's gay because he believes he has to fit a certain mold? Generally, I tend to adhere to Dan Savage's set of sexual values--if you're adults, it's consensual, and no animals are involved, then you're good.
Secondly, and more importantly, it's condemning female pursuit of pleasure. The evangelical Christian wait-until-marriage doctrine generally tends to reject things like women taking leadership roles, women articulating their own needs and desires, and all that good stuff that healthy sexual relationships are based on. Think about what would have happened on American Idol if a young woman had walked in and told the judges that she volunteered for a nonprofit education group that teaches girls how to be aware of their bodies, their sexual potential, masturbate, and articulate what they want and need sexually. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have gotten the "that's so sweet!" treatment. And for that matter, I can't think of a single instance where I've heard of a nonprofit that does just that, though I've sure heard of plenty teaching abstinence and repression.
So, women need to be respected. And that includes that girl and her opinion that sex before marriage is wrong. That's her belief, and that's fine. But we need equally vocal groups countering that opinion and being vocal about a woman's right to control her own body in every sense. We need groups telling girls that they are allowed to have sexual desires and fantasies--it's not just a guy thing. We need a society that is more tolerant of sexually liberated women--no more Madonna-whore dichotomy. And we need better TV shows than American Idol, but that's a whole seperate issue.
1.15.2008
Capitalist activism?
So, we've spent the last two days in Post class debating economics, environmental issues, social change and activism. Which sounds like my cup of tea, except I keep leaving class wanting to kill someone. Because, these, essentially were the debates:
Day 1 : Environmental Justice
Issue: Are there always losers in a capitalist system and can you make progress in areas like this without destroying capitalism?
Sides:
Victor Lindstrom--You can't change things like high pollution areas without getting rid of capitalism, therefore you shouldn't try.
Darren Veit and others--You can't change without getting rid of capitalism, therefore we should get rid of capitalism because it's inherently racist and classist.
Me and nobody else--Capitalism and environmental/social justice aren't incompatible, you just need small amounts of regulation and government action which gives market incentives for positive change.
Day 2: Social Entrepreneurship
Issue: Can you make money without exploiting someone?
Sides
Darren--No, it's completely impossible, especially in the US because it's ingrained in our economic and political system.
Me--Yes--trade isn't a zero-sum game. You having a dollar means someone else has a dollar less, but that's not a bad thing all the time. If I sell you something for a dollar that you're willing to buy for a dollar, everyone wins. I get a dollar richer. You get a dollar of value. And this isn't just theory--Grameen Bank, case in point. It's an incredibly profitable business, and it benefits the poor who get microloans. Even Cranium. Who does that exploit? I'm not going to say it does no harm to anybody, and especially not the environment, but that's different than exploitation.
I'm so sick of feeling like the only activist who doesn't hate capitalism. Yes, it has its problems, but find me a better system. And people like Ms. Engstrom, who get mad about the fact that we're looking for alternative fuel technologies for cars, when we should all just stop driving in the first place..I'm sorry, but we as a society can't function that way. Progress doesn't have to be a bad thing. And while you might be ok with that, most people wouldn't be, and you can't force people to live a certain way.
And it occurs to me now that I'm conflicted about so many things, everyday. I have so many things fighting inside of me, so many different opinions about every single little thing in the world. Let me show you what I mean:
I have a deep respect for our women and men in uniform, and I believe that they are incredibly brave and loyal people. I think war is necessary sometimes. But I hate our military-minded complex, I hate that we fight other cultures first and negotiate later, and I hate the wars those brave soldiers have been involved in in the last few decades.
I believe everyone should have opportunity to advance and that companies should pay people living wages. I know that most people are poor through bad luck or birth, not because of laziness. But I also think companies have a right to hire people at market prices--what people are willing to work for, be it in third world sweatshops or here within our borders. After all, a sweatshop job is better than no job, as horrible as that sounds.
I love the earth and I would rather die than live in a world without mountains, trees, animals and functional ecosystems (and I'm pretty sure that's not an exaggeration for dramatic effect). I believe we all, collectively need to wake up and start reducing our consumption, building sustainable communities and taking care of the earth. But I don't think you can force businesses to be more green. You can't shut down the cattle industry, even if it is responsible for 25% of the world's carbon emissions. You can't make ExxonMobile stop spending billions of dollars to convince people that climate change isn't real. And you can't say that the better information will win, because the people with the money aren't usually the green ones, and it hasn't been working.
How can I change the world when I can't convince my own father to keep our thermostat below 70 degrees? How can I justify asking other people to change their lives when I live in the house I do, wear the clothes I wear, buy the things I buy? How can I, believing so much in the value of competition, the human spirit, the beauty of innovation, how can I tell somebody that their idea, their business, their profit-making method is not valid because the cost is too high to society?
To those of you who ask--how can you spend so much time thinking about these things, my only response is--how can you not? I've never known another way to think, to look at the world. I've thought this way since 2nd grade--my knowledge and opinions have shifted, my core values have remained the same. I believe our lives have no higher mandate, no higher purpose, than to work as hard as we can for as long as we can to make the world a better place, in whatever way we see that. Some people are scientists, giving us a better understanding of the world around us and its possibilities. Some are artists, making us think and adding beauty to a world that can seem bleak. Some of us are businesspeople, coming up with new ideas and finding better ways to make them. And some of us are activists, for the same reason--because that is our calling. Because that is the only way I know to make the world better.
Day 1 : Environmental Justice
Issue: Are there always losers in a capitalist system and can you make progress in areas like this without destroying capitalism?
Sides:
Victor Lindstrom--You can't change things like high pollution areas without getting rid of capitalism, therefore you shouldn't try.
Darren Veit and others--You can't change without getting rid of capitalism, therefore we should get rid of capitalism because it's inherently racist and classist.
Me and nobody else--Capitalism and environmental/social justice aren't incompatible, you just need small amounts of regulation and government action which gives market incentives for positive change.
Day 2: Social Entrepreneurship
Issue: Can you make money without exploiting someone?
Sides
Darren--No, it's completely impossible, especially in the US because it's ingrained in our economic and political system.
Me--Yes--trade isn't a zero-sum game. You having a dollar means someone else has a dollar less, but that's not a bad thing all the time. If I sell you something for a dollar that you're willing to buy for a dollar, everyone wins. I get a dollar richer. You get a dollar of value. And this isn't just theory--Grameen Bank, case in point. It's an incredibly profitable business, and it benefits the poor who get microloans. Even Cranium. Who does that exploit? I'm not going to say it does no harm to anybody, and especially not the environment, but that's different than exploitation.
I'm so sick of feeling like the only activist who doesn't hate capitalism. Yes, it has its problems, but find me a better system. And people like Ms. Engstrom, who get mad about the fact that we're looking for alternative fuel technologies for cars, when we should all just stop driving in the first place..I'm sorry, but we as a society can't function that way. Progress doesn't have to be a bad thing. And while you might be ok with that, most people wouldn't be, and you can't force people to live a certain way.
And it occurs to me now that I'm conflicted about so many things, everyday. I have so many things fighting inside of me, so many different opinions about every single little thing in the world. Let me show you what I mean:
I have a deep respect for our women and men in uniform, and I believe that they are incredibly brave and loyal people. I think war is necessary sometimes. But I hate our military-minded complex, I hate that we fight other cultures first and negotiate later, and I hate the wars those brave soldiers have been involved in in the last few decades.
I believe everyone should have opportunity to advance and that companies should pay people living wages. I know that most people are poor through bad luck or birth, not because of laziness. But I also think companies have a right to hire people at market prices--what people are willing to work for, be it in third world sweatshops or here within our borders. After all, a sweatshop job is better than no job, as horrible as that sounds.
I love the earth and I would rather die than live in a world without mountains, trees, animals and functional ecosystems (and I'm pretty sure that's not an exaggeration for dramatic effect). I believe we all, collectively need to wake up and start reducing our consumption, building sustainable communities and taking care of the earth. But I don't think you can force businesses to be more green. You can't shut down the cattle industry, even if it is responsible for 25% of the world's carbon emissions. You can't make ExxonMobile stop spending billions of dollars to convince people that climate change isn't real. And you can't say that the better information will win, because the people with the money aren't usually the green ones, and it hasn't been working.
How can I change the world when I can't convince my own father to keep our thermostat below 70 degrees? How can I justify asking other people to change their lives when I live in the house I do, wear the clothes I wear, buy the things I buy? How can I, believing so much in the value of competition, the human spirit, the beauty of innovation, how can I tell somebody that their idea, their business, their profit-making method is not valid because the cost is too high to society?
To those of you who ask--how can you spend so much time thinking about these things, my only response is--how can you not? I've never known another way to think, to look at the world. I've thought this way since 2nd grade--my knowledge and opinions have shifted, my core values have remained the same. I believe our lives have no higher mandate, no higher purpose, than to work as hard as we can for as long as we can to make the world a better place, in whatever way we see that. Some people are scientists, giving us a better understanding of the world around us and its possibilities. Some are artists, making us think and adding beauty to a world that can seem bleak. Some of us are businesspeople, coming up with new ideas and finding better ways to make them. And some of us are activists, for the same reason--because that is our calling. Because that is the only way I know to make the world better.
1.02.2008
A suggestion for DIY activism
Like many socially conscious and politically active youth, I constantly want new t-shirts. I identify as liberal, feminist, environmentalist, vegetarian, atheist, anti-materialist, anti-Bush and a bunch of other stuff. And every time I see one of those t-shirts with a witty saying on it--Feminism is the radical notion that women are people or America--one nation under surveillance, I feel compelled to get it so my clothing will speak for what I believe.
But I also believe in green living and simple living and using money for useful purposes. And that side of me is strongly against spending $15 for a Save Darfur shirt instead of just donating $15 to the cause. Plus, I can't shell out money every time someone makes a cool shirt--that's impractical and ridiculous. So, caught in this quandary, I've generally avoided that whole line of shirts.
Until today, that is, when I had a rare flash of brilliance. Why not, I thought to myself, make my own shirt? I thought about this for a few minutes and decided it was feasible. I had a few plain color shirts sitting around that I didn't wear because they're boring. I had spray paint left over from Purple & White Day. All I needed was a few stencils, which I found on this awesome site: http://72.29.83.164/~stencil/stencils.htm
So now, I have this lovely shirt:
But I also believe in green living and simple living and using money for useful purposes. And that side of me is strongly against spending $15 for a Save Darfur shirt instead of just donating $15 to the cause. Plus, I can't shell out money every time someone makes a cool shirt--that's impractical and ridiculous. So, caught in this quandary, I've generally avoided that whole line of shirts.
Until today, that is, when I had a rare flash of brilliance. Why not, I thought to myself, make my own shirt? I thought about this for a few minutes and decided it was feasible. I had a few plain color shirts sitting around that I didn't wear because they're boring. I had spray paint left over from Purple & White Day. All I needed was a few stencils, which I found on this awesome site: http://72.29.83.164/~stencil/stencils.htm
So now, I have this lovely shirt:
Yes, it's a bit ghetto and the spray painting isn't perfect. But I'm happy about it. I used some of my extra spray paint, I used an old shirt that I wasn't wearing much, I didn't spend any money, and George Bush even looks recognizable. So I propose this--next time you want to make a statement, grab an old shirt, a can of spray paint, and do it yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)