Daily Beijing Olympics Thread for 13 August 2008

(Natalie Coughlin models the Speedo Fastskin LZR Racer Suit)

Here's your daily subjective report on the Olympics and a chance to converse about it in comments.

SPOILER NOTE: Some results will be reported below for the competition of yesterday, so be forewarned.

FEEDBACK TO COMMENTS POSTED AT GROUP NEWS BLOG: It's so predictable. I self-identify as disabled and at least one person thinks that means it's okay to call me retarded. This is classic able-bodied oppression. I do not have a mental or cognitive disability (although I did for part of one year, after anoxia during a surgery). If I did, I'd say so without shame. It's not funny and it's not "less than", it's simply a difference. Retard, on the other hand, is a hate term and is not welcome here. I'm leaving the comment up to make my point, but future hate speech directed against physical difference will disappear, poof.

I think commenting on the rigid feminization of certain sports is entirely appropriate, just as commenting on race and class as it limits those who can be at the Olympics is what a political blog should be doing. I used humor to change the pace, but I think it must have gone over at least one person's head: Pointing out sexism and classism is NOT part of the problem, despite the American myth that silence is the only (middle-class) way to be "nice". White, male, and upper class are default normal in this country. If you point out something contrary to the default, if you ask for attention to be directed toward the areas where people are still fucking dying daily because they are targeted in these areas, it is not identity politics or causing trouble, it is clarity and conscience which offers hope to every person who isn't comfortably included in (or allied with) the "default" categories.

Using "political correctness" as an attempted insult immediately marks you as having been stunted by the thinking of the Right, as begun by Reagan. Liberal, politically correct, compassion, and global are not terms of disparagement to me and other radicals. Political correctness is, at its baseline, a sincere attempt to avoid language, thinking and behavior which contributes to the oppression of others. If it seems hilarious or too much work to you, well, as Dr. Phil says, you might wanna take a look at that.


I also have a little trouble with the term "heatherish", which has the feel of pretending that the internalized oppression aimed by members of a target group at one another is what keeps those of in the target group oppressed and "in line". My self-reminder in any analysis is: Check the power flow, dummy. Me noticing how terrified these young women are of looking "not right" is NOT the oppression (which is a blend of class and gender).

One commenter made a great point, about objective scoring vs. subjective. Another commenter (at my own blog) made a related point when she voiced appreciation for the commentators who are taking the time to explain the sport to us as the action goes along. Understanding why deductions occur helps make it a much more enjoyable, shared experience -- and, incidentally, reveals where subjectivity has too much leeway. I'm still outraged that Torvill & Dean didn't win their ice-dancing competition years ago, and whether it was judge corruption or simple disagreement about technique, the presence of subjective scoring there allowed a decision that almost no one found fair.

Thanks to the white-water fans who explained more about why Benjamin Boukpeti's win was so exciting, and about how the current course is equalizing gender in this particular sport. And, again, thanks to earlier commenters who gave me a smidgen of education about fencing: When I watched the women's team saber finals today, I understood a great deal more and got very caught up in the action.

Back to the question of attire: Much was made of Michael Phelps having to swim last night with goggles full of water, which effectively blinded him for 100 meters. To his credit, he still turned in a world record time. Since he is poised to break Mark Spitz's record, the Today show featured an interview with Mark Spitz, who was extremely gracious and supportive. I remembered him (all the swimmers then) racing without goggles, so I went to Youtube and found a video of the 1972 games, below. It's blurry but does show all the men wore no goggles or hats, had often shaggy hair (including Spitz's mustache, which I don't think we'd ever see today), and not all of them had the skimpy Speedo that Spitz wore. There was a lot of talk about how revealing his suit was, as I remember, but he said it played a role in his superior swim times and, of course, he was right about that.



In December 1974, my partner and I with our four-year-old daughter were traveling through South Texas and we stopped at the Magic Time Machine restaurant in San Antonio (which is still there). This is a TGI Friday's kinda place whose gimmick is that all the staff dresses up like characters from history or current pop culture. We were shown to a table by a guy dressed as Benjamin Franklin and invited to go to the "salad car" right away. Folks dressed in wildly different costumes flowed back and forth, and our daughter was a little frightened by it all -- she didn't recognize most of who the actors were supposed to be portraying.

Back at our table, however, as our waiter approached she cried out with delight "Look! It's Mark Spitz!" Wearing a skimpy Speedo, with that brushy mustache and mop of hair, and seven gold medals bouncing back and forth on his chest, indeed, Mark Spitz's double took our order. My daughter shyly asked if she could touch one of his medals, and he consented graciously. I noticed, however, his skin was slightly blue and there were goosebumps on his arms. He must have been freezing, poor guy.

My daughter talked about meeting Mark Spitz for years, a thrill of her young life. We didn't let on until she was old enough to figure it out for herself.

This Olympics we're seeing an astonishing number of swimming world records broken, not just by Michael Phelps but across the board, even in qualifying heats. One possible cause is the widespread use of Speedo's Fastskin LZR Racer suit, which I think first appeared at the Athens Olympics but appears perfected at this point. Also, the newer Olympic pools manipulate water away from the swimmer, as if they are "swimming downhill". And I've heard that new chemicals to more quickly remove lactic acid from overused muscles gives a strong advantage to current athletes who must perform repetitively in a single day or over a few days.

I mention all this with no intention to draw away credit from the astonishing performances we are seeing. It's a swimming Olympics to remember, for sure. And -- as Mark Spitz's record is bested, let's remember the guy who did what he did without these advantages, without hype or much expected of him at all: Seven gold medals in seven races, with a new world record time in each race. We can't compare him to Phelps or anyone else, really, because that was then and this is now; his race times would not hold up now. We can honor both equally, for what they have done.

As if the commentators were listening to my earlier criticism (which of course they were not), they've done better about explaining instead of gushing and sharing the praise in more directions. I finally found out what Natalie Coughlin is so good on turns (she rotates her body sideways for a stroke, which creates less drag), why a big swimmer with Alain Bernard can negatively affect a smaller swimmer (backwash at the turn), and why Phelp's unusual body is so ideal for swimming (his arm span is 6'7", three inches longer than his height; his feet are size 14 and bend an extra 15 degrees at the ankle, allowing him to use them much more as flippers).

Interestingly, after Jason Lezak won Bronze in the only event where he swam individually at this Olympics, the men's 100m freestyle, he was interviewed by Rowdy Gaines. During the course of the interview, Gaines quite appropriately brought up the most exciting swim of this games so far, Lezak's anchor leg of the 4x100 free relay with a split of 46.06. However, Gaines veered off into Phelpsomania, stating "You got Michael his gold in that event." With a slight smile and a steady voice, Lezak replied "I did not swim that race to win a gold for Michael." Hear, hear! When this was replayed with Bob Costas present, Costas appeared unable to take it in, although Gaines did and seemed to appreciate Lezak drawing a lane in the pool, as it were: He is not Phelps' minion.

And, from what I can see, Phelps is very aware of that. He seems to be close to his male cohorts. It's the press who have attempted to make him into the Only Swimmer that Matters -- and for too many of them, it's for a commercial bottom line, not even from pure love of sport.

Speaking of commercialism: I don't remember previous Olympics' coverage showing every single heat and semifinal as this one has (51 in total). I personally love swimming, but it occurred to me that because of watching all these non-decisive races, I'm missing all the other events that could be covered. Track & Field begin tomorrow, which has a similar multitude of events and voluminous numbers of competitors to be winnowed down to final races. I'll be watching to see if all those heats are aired as well. If not, I'll raise the question of whether this is pure commercialism -- i.e., give viewers only what is most popular -- or, dare I say it, because most of the athletes in swimming are white and most of the athletes in track & field are NOT white? A discussion to be continued, after more observation.

Locally (I live in Austin, Texas) there's a great deal of credit being given to Longhorn Aquatics at the University of Texas, where a huge number of these swimmers train -- some of them not even pros yet, still students at UT. Since I should plug my home town at least once, the following swimmers are from the Longhorn program: Ricky Berens, Hee-Jin Chang (swimming for China), Ian Crocker, Susana Escobar (swimming for Mexico), Brendan Hansen, Kathleen Hersey, Aaron Peirsol, Scott Spann, Garrett Weber-Gale, and Dave Walters.

While I'm plugging, I discovered a blog I read regularly is running GREAT posts about the Olympics with cultural and sociological commentary, covering territory I'm not: Sue Katz Consenting Adult. I especially liked her report on the older athletes who find a niche in some sports, Boomer Olympians.

Also, the Guardian UK wrote a pre-Olympics article which is highly educational and entertaining, Game For Anything, in which they sent eight of their reporters out in crash courses for competitions. These intrepid writers report back on the finer points of steeple chase, front crawl, shot put, fencing, gymnastics, rowing, high jump, and BMX. It's a great read.

Returning to attire: The aforementioned LZR swimsuits show the men swimmers constantly adjusting their shoulder straps and arm holes as compulsively as the women. I was happy to see it's not just us: When you wear a tight garment that lets flesh bulge out, you simply are not as comfortable in it. (Plus the nervousness factor, I'm sure.) In my freshman year of high school, our basketball uniforms were the old-fashioned style with shorts that were more like panties and arm sleeves in a baby-doll style. I remember our coach screaming at us during one time-out because somebody had been pushing her ass-cheek back into her suit instead of catching the ball on a pass.

The next year, new suits were bought for both the boys and girls' basketball teams, and after heated lobbying on our part, we got the same style as the boys -- roomy sleeves, breathable fabric, long-legged and baggy shorts with wide waistbands. I still remember the glorious freedom I felt when I first put mine on, not only the ease of movement but, even more, the relief from having to worry about exposure. When I watch women doing strenuous movements in leotards and see them constantly reaching to their bottoms to make sure the fabric hasn't ridden up too far, I feel for them. I suspect, as one commenter said, it's about the look rather than the function -- otherwise, men would be wanting to compete in leotards as well.

And, finally, regarding commentary, race, and class inequality at the games: I was watching in 2000 when Eric Moussambani swam his heat for the men's 100 meter freestyle. I was leaned forward cheering for him every agonizing stroke of the final 50 meters, and also laughing wildly: How on earth had this guy gotten to the Olympics? The last few meters, it looked like someone might need to jump in and pull him out. He was immediately dubbed "Eric the Eel".

Turns out, according to Wikipedia, he "gained entry to the Olympics without meeting the minimum qualification requirements via a wildcard draw designed to encourage developing countries without expensive training facilities to participate." In other words, poor countries are given a ticket to compete but no funding to support their athletes. What I remember from interviews at the time, he had no access to an Olympic-sized pool and therefore trained in a hotel pool that was 20 meters long, so 50 meters was 2.5 times what he usually swam. He had only been training for eight months, and he did it for the honor of his country.

It stopped being funny at that point. Below is a Youtube video of Eric Moussambani's swim, the most respectful one I could find (and it's not entirely free of crap).



When I checked the NBC site to see who is competing from his country this year, I found under the entry for Equatorial Guinea a brief reference to Moussambani which stated "he had only learned to swim eight months before, and in crocodile-infested waters." This is directly contradicted by my memory of his history and also by that of Wikipedia, and it smacks of appalling racial stereotyping.

To make matters worse, last night the NBC anchor ran another video of a swimmer from who was the sole competitor for a poor African country (I didn't catch the name and I cannot find it by searching the NBC site). He was swimming in a heat and came in dead last. The commentator prefaced it by going from an image of (guess who) Michael Phelps to the heat, stating "And now, from the sublime to, well, also the sublime but in an entirely different way". He laughed throughout the video. His tone was utterly condescending. If you can supply the name of this swimmer and country, I'd appreciate it.

Professionalism in sports is not the problem: Paying athletes is on a par with paying artists and other non-profit endeavors, in my opinion. It's who is controlling the endeavor (i.e., community vs. corporate or government), and how fair is the access that matters most. Paying lip-service to access while providing no money for athletes to train is disingenuous at best. I admit it's a stretch to ask wealthy superpowers to set aside some of our largesse to create sports program for boys and girls in the countries we tend to exploit, especially since those kids will likely grow up to be crackerjack competitors -- but can you imagine the Olympics which would result from a truly leveled playing field? (Pun intended.)

(Stephanie Rice wins 200m individual relay, photo from China Daily)

WORLD RECORDS IN SWIMMING SET ON AUGUST 12 AND 13:
Alain Bernard of France in Men's 100m Freestyle: 47.20 WR (in the semifinal)
Federica Pellegrini of Italy in Women's 200m Freestyle: 1:54.82 WR (won Gold)
Michael Phelps of U.S. in Men's 200m Butterfly: 1:52.03 WR (won Gold)
Michael Phelps of U.S. in Men's 200m Freestyle: 1:42.96 WR (won Gold)
Aaron Peirsol of U.S. in Men's 100m Backstroke: 52.54 WR (won Gold)
Stephanie Rice of Australia in Women's 200m Individual Medley: 2:08.45 WR (won Gold)
Ricky Berens, Ryan Lochte, Michael Phelps, and Peter Vanderkaay of US in Men's 4x200 Freestyle Relay: 6:58.56 WR (won Gold)

OLYMPIC RECORDS IN SWIMMING SET ON AUGUST 12 AND 13:
Paolo Bossini of Italy in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.98 OR (in the heats)
Kirsty Coventry of Zimbabwe in Women's 200m Individual Medley: 2:09.53 OR (in the semifinal)
Daniel Gyurta of Hungary (beating record set by Paolo Bossini in previous heat same day) in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.68 OR (in the heats)
Leisel Jones of Australia in Women's 100m Breaststroke: 1:05.17 OR (won Gold)
Kosuke Kitajima of Japan in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.61 OR (in the semifinal)
Rebecca Soni of U.S. in Women's 200m Breaststroke: 2:22.17 OR (in the heats)
Coralie Balmy, Celine Couderc, Camille Muffat, and Alena Popchanka of France in Women's 4x200m Freestyle Relay: 7:50.37 OR (in the heats)
Ricky Berens, Klete Keller, Erik Vendt, and David Walters in Men's 4x200 Freestyle Relay: 7:04.66 OR (in the heats)

SCHEDULE AND RESULTS: Available here.

P.S. NBC, PLEASE stop doing segments on reporters trying to eat fried scorpions. It's junior high "let's make fun of what other people eat" behavior. Get over it.


[Cross-posted at Group News Blog.]

Read More...

Summary only...

NETROOTS NATION NEXT DOOR TO SUSANNA DICKINSON

(Susannah Dickinson)

On Saturday night of the Netroots Nation conference, a big crowd of us (because of Sara's brilliant idea) went to Threadgill's to eat and then attend the Austin Lounge Lizards concert in the beer garden outside the front door. We had an EXTREMELY good time, no holds barred.

Afterward, rather than have me (with my Chair Whisperer Lower Manhattanite) try to negotiate the obstacle-strewn streets of downtown Austin back to the Hilton in my power chair, Sara urged us to find out if the local cab service offered a van that would transport a big chair like mine. Yellow Cab said they had two in service, both of them currently in use but we were put in their queue. We then had a long wait outside the front door at Threadgill's, during which time an earnest young man on their staff checked in on our cab's status no less than three times and came to give us updates. Austin friendly...

The minivan, when it arrived, loaded my chair via a ramp into a lowered back well, a single slot with more protection and belting than I've experienced being transported in a chair. My four companions claimed seats in front of me. I was exhausted beyond speech, and facing another cab ride home, walking into my house unassisted, and retracing those steps in the morning after, at best, five hours' sleep. Even so, my mind was racing.


We got stuck in a construction zone for a while on 4th Street next to Brush Square, and directly outside my window was a historical marker indicating in the tree-filled park beyond was the home of Susanna Dickinson. I was flooded with emotion. I wanted to share this with my companions, but, first of all, the layout of the wheelchair van meant I'd have to shout forward to be heard. Second, if you are not a Texan of a certain age, how to explain the significance of Susanna Dickinson?

Susanna was inside the Alamo. She had gone inside the soon-to-be-surrounded mission with her husband Almeron Dickinson, who had joined a group of volunteers fighting for Texan independence from Mexico. She and her baby daughter were the only white survivors, and they were saved only by the direct intervention of General Juan Almonte. Other survivors include Enrique Esparza, eight-year-old son of Alamo defender Gregorio Esparza, and Joe (no other name known), slave of Colonel William Barrett Travis. The eyewitness accounts of Susanna, Joe and Enrique, the first two of whom were illiterate, gave us most of what we know about what happened inside the Alamo. For a complete list of survivors and accounts, see Survivors of the Alamo.

Susana hid in the chapel, where she was discovered by Almonte. As he escorted her to an audience with General Santa Anna, she was shot in the leg by a soldier because final mop-up was still going on. She was questioned extensively by Santa Anna, who offered to adopt her baby. I can only imagine her terror and confusion. Eventually, she was released with a note written by Santa Anna to be delivered to San Houston. Dickinson and a few companions retreated to Gonzales, where the families of other Alamo defenders were awaiting news. Dickinson was who had to inform them everyone else was dead, their bodies burned in a mass funeral pyre. With Santa Anna's army headed their way, Gonzales and its environs had to flee in what is known at the Runaway Scrape. It appears that Dickinson was not emotionally stable during this time, likely not able to process what she had just lived through, not to mention the loss of her husband whom she had genuinely loved.

Joe's last name seems to exist in no record. Most accounts seem to indicate he escaped to freedom, and presumably he was reluctant after that to draw attention to himself by asserting his claim as an Alamo survivor. But it is of course racism that also contributes to his lesser-known status as an Alamo informant. As a child growing up, I never heard reference to Joe, or to little Enrique Esparza. To admit that Mexican citizens fought alongside the "heroes" of the Alamo would have contradicted the white vs. brown association of the battle.

Susanna Dickinson was revered all her life as the Alamo Widow. However, she was repeatedly denied any sort of compensation or benefits by the Republic and later the State of Texas, with claims of financial hardship on the part of the Republic and the argument that if they gave her assistance, they'd have to help everyone else who suffered losses during the war. This might hold water if I did not have in my possession a grant of handsome reimbursement to my ancestor Brinkley Davis, a large landowner in Limestone County, Texas during the Texas revolution, for his contribution of "beeves" to the army. Brinkley needed the money far less than Susanna did.

In desperation, she went through a series of three marriages, to men who beat her and her daughter, were alcoholics, and divorced her when she became associated with a house of ill repute. Her fifth and final marriage turned out to be stable and happy. However, her daughter Angelina, another idolized Alamo survivor who was likewise denied financial assistance, died young from hemorrhage of the uterus while working as a prostitute.

This story reminds me of how George W. Bush consistently withholds meaningful aid to the institutions and groups to whom he pays the most patriotic lip-service. Indeed, his trashing of the National Guard and veterans in general is nothing short of pathological. In the Right's world, active duty and honor is for those too dumb and poor to know better. Survivors are not as admirable as those who die for the cause. And the families left behind are not our concern. I swear to god, I want this brought up every single time any talking head refers to the Republicans as the party of family values.

There we were, progressives and revolutionaries meeting for four days within hollering distance of the home of Susanna Dickinson. She could have told us worlds about the consequences of eliminationist rhetoric, about the reality of immigrants who steal territory from sovereign nations (which Texas did perpetrate upon Mexico, hence our projection and paranoia), about the status as property or shadow beings accorded women, children, and people of color.

A recent series on PBS has been The War of the World by Niall Ferguson. In the last episode, concerning the period after World War II when superpowers engaged in so-called Cold War, he pointed out that 20 million people died in battles during the Cold War which were not considered a real war. Overwhelmingly, these have been ethnic assaults, genocide in the name of nation-building, occurring at the edges of empire: A perfect description of Iraq now. And it applies equally well to Texas in the 1830s.

Sara Robinson and I, in a later discussion, agreed that we have to abandon the linearity of Left, Right, and Center. We need to completely reframe not just our/their rhetoric, but also the ways in which our brains envision what we are about, we here in this great electronic conversation about hope and change. Consider it as a spiral, a cochlear unwinding (or tightening) which we travel, always very close to one another no matter much we claim disagreement, and likewise separated from all the lessons of time by only a thin membrane. There is power and confidence in such a stance.

Read More...

Summary only...

ENOUGH ALREADY

(Image by Sol Steinberg)

Here's the short version: Judgment errors on the part of Democratic candidates, which are inevitable and frequent no matter how much you worship your boy/girl, do not give other Democrats permission to attack their character and smear entire groups of people in retaliation.

Geraldine Ferraro's remarks are racist. From the trail that's being unearthed, she has a history of making such comments and believing in them. More on that below. If she's a member of a campaign effort, then when her comment becomes public, she needs to be asked to apologize and step down from her association, and the head of that campaign needs to state in unequivocal terms what was wrong about the statements and that their campaign will not tolerate such belief. This is the decent thing to do.


Do campaigns follow this ethic? Never if they are Republicans. Not nearly enough if they are Democrats. Hillary Clinton's failure to step up is a major blow to her credibility, and it's good that this is being discussed. What's more crucial is an examination of the flawed thinking behind the comment, and I appreciate bloggers who are taking the time to do this. I really don't appreciate those with CDS who are jumping on it as chance to call her everything but the Jane Fonda word -- in the guise of "analysis".

Those political bloggers stupid enough to have revealed their biases this early on in a Presidential race have lost my interest and patience. You really did not have to come out for a candidate in order to do your job. Daily Kos has become a joke of let's-find-out-something-else-wrong-with-Hillary posting. With that level of favoritism, I don't believe they'll report as honestly and accurately when Barack fucks up bigtime, as he most assuredly will -- he's not that good, folks. He's earned our respect and definitely our vote, but he's not a shining path to manna and honey.

And, referring to the ethic above: He said nothing about Samantha Powers labelling Hillary a monster, and has not distanced his campaign from those remarks, either. Where's your outcry about that?

One good thing about the tensions of this unique Presidential season is that it affords the opportunity, for those intelligent enough to make use of it, to discuss in detail how racism and sexism function in our culture, distinctly from one another, not in comparison but as two different facets of oppression which serve to keep woman-hating and white supremacy the American norm. Those who follow only one line of the discussion are contributing to the game which keeps us all at one another's throats. I won't read you any more until you clean your shit up.

Now, some racism 101: Let's start with what she actually said on the John Gibson show on February 26:

"Ferraro: When I see John Lewis ... a civil rights leader, why in God's name did he change his vote from Hillary to Barack Obama. I'll tell you why, because he faces -- he's not going to lose a Democratic primary in his district in two years, but he sure as hell will face one if he sticks it to Barack Obama when he has a greater majority of blacks in his district ... I'm so disappointed in him I could die.

"I look at Rosa DeLauro up in Connecticut. She represents New Haven. Tell me -- I don't care what she says -- tell me why she's endorsing Barack Obama ... and then came to his defense on an issue like choice where he voted six times maybe, when he voted present -- I'm like a lunatic about this stuff ...

"If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position?"

What I read from this are several messages:
(1) Black people stick together behind black candidates, and if you cross them, you'll lose their vote.
(2) Why would a woman endorse a candidate who's not voted reliably on a key women's health issue, especially when a woman candidate who has voted reliably is available? It must be racial ganging together.
(3) The people who are supporting Obama are doing so more because he is black than because of the issues, but that "plus" would be eliminated if he were a woman because sexism trumps racism.

So, what I could do with this is call Ferraro names, impugn her generation/feminism/ethnicity/class, or use another several male-conditioning-accepted tricks to conceal the fact that I have feelings about discovering someone who's been a pioneer and has power being this flawed. At least in the above excerpt, Ferraro admitted her feelings, twice. But in the blogging world, thinking of a dozen ways to talk trash about others is never identified as unexpressed and inappropriate anger/hurt/fear. Because guys, you know, don't have feelings in the way of their ability to see and think. It's that Penis Protection Factor(™).

(See, I just did what the bloggers are doing. Doesn't make you especially want to hear more, does it? Not when it's focused on somebody other than the socially-acceptable target of women. Or fat people. Hostility is something you are going to have to GIVE UP for the revolution, or else g*d will leave you behind in the desert. You want Obama to lead you into paradise, but paradise doesn't want your passive-aggressive ass.)

Instead, I'll address the fallacies, one by one.

(1) 'Black folks/people of cullah are in secret collusion against the white masters in the big house.' This paranoia is as old as slavery. The truth is, if oppressed groups WERE able to act in unity and with shared intent, slavery would have ended the first time blacks outnumbered whites in any given county, and there would be 25 female Senators, a list of 22 past female Presidents, etc. This is not just paranoia, it's projection. Reality shows that it is WHITE people who act in racial collusion, who make choices more on the basis of gender and race than on issues or character, and who enforce the status quo by reprisal.

To give you a different analogy, the Christian Right floated the balloon of a "homosexual agenda", some sort of concerted plan to take over public schools, city councils, state legislatures, etc. Clearly none of them had ever attended any kind of queer meeting, to believe we could agree on even the name of such a movement. The folks who DID have an "agenda", a "seekwet pwan" (to quote C.J. Craig) to take over, were of course the folks making the accusation.

Here's a nearly infallible rule of thumb when dealing with those who are letting their emotions (particularly fear) run their brain: (a) They will lie, because they are rehearsing the lies imprinted on them too early to resist the conditioning, and (b) they will be convinced you are doing or about to do whatever it is they are, in fact, doing.

(2) Following up on #1, SOME people actually can sort through issues instead of being entirely swayed by identity politics. This is not to say identity politics are bad, or should be ignored -- that's as dismissive as saying we are past racism, can't we just all be friends? But there does exist the ability to hold several somewhat conflicting ideas in one's head at the same time, not try to figure out which is "the point" and instead create a synthesized view which takes into account the failings of another even as you support them. Women are raised to know how to do this. We are told from the moment we can walk and talk that we are supposed to grow up and create marriages/families with someone from a group whose conditioned ability to process emotion, nurture, maintain intimate connection regardless of sexual gratification, and maintain a household is far inferior to ours. We have to make allowances and value others for what they can bring to the table or else we'll be alone (or happily lesbian).

You know who else gets that kind of upbringing? People of color. They know who we are, as white people. They're around us all the fucking time, we're not fooling anybody. But if they don't learn how to get past our bullshit and deal with us, most of time, at face value, they wind up getting locked away. It's how groups who are target for oppression cope, and teach their children to cope. If you're in the non-target group, you will not have the same ability.

(And, I'm sorry to tell you, fans of alt rock, computer games and Battlestar Galactica do not actually constitute victimized subcultures. You think you know what it's like to be outside the box of normal, but unless you are colored, female, crippled and/or raised poor in this country, you do not.)

Lastly -- Barack Obama has been a real prick on the subject of lesbian/gay/bi/trans issues. Nevertheless, he is ardently supported by members of that community. Likewise, DOMA was a kick in the ovaries to us, but we're also behind Hillary Clinton in massive numbers. What does that make us, martyrs? Or just able to see a bigger picture?

(3) This point is more complicated, because Ferraro comes closest to naming something that I think does exist: Tokenism and belief in the Magical Negro. She comes close, but that is not what she really means -- we can tell because (a) other of her comments reveal she's not exercising rational thinking on the topic of race and (b) the fact that some white people (especially white middle-to-upper class men) engage in tokenism does not apply to the example of Barack Obama's success.

Tokens are advanced because they will not question the status quo and because they are sure to be incompetent. Think Alberto Gonzales or Clarence Thomas. They are popular in non-target groups because those groups fail to comprehend the complicated reality of racism (or whatever oppression is being questioned) and believe having a connection to someone in the target group somehow negates the possibility that they are racist.

But, overwhelmingly, tokens are not elected to office. They are appointed or otherwise put into position by those who hold the real power. Certainly they do not have Obama's record. This one is a no-brainer to prove.

Part of the efficacy of oppression is to separate (in an institutional fashion) those in target groups who would otherwise create alliance and outnumber the non-target group in power. This is done through systematic conditioning, and clearly Ferraro is suffering from its unhealed effects. There is simply no logical way to compare racism with sexism, or sexism with disabled oppression, or disabled oppression with the ownership of children, or the ownership of children with classism. There is no "primary oppression", there is no keystone whose removal will bring down the edifice to everyone's benefit: We have to address all of the lies simultaneously, as a unified force. As Paul Wellstone so eloquently put it, "Everyone does better when EVERYONE does better."

When confronted with the lies, the non-target system will at first deny they are lies. They will then say the lies only apply to the "bad" members of the target group. They will then try to get the various target groups fighting with each other about which one has it worse. We're at the third stage right now. However you engage in their distraction tactic -- either by comparing oppressions, or by venting your self-righteous vitriole on some fucking woman who dares to compare herself to you -- is a waste. Name the lie, ask for an ethical response, notice what does or does not occur, and move on.

One of the commenters at my post on Harriet Tubman states she read that the narcoleptic condition Harriet suffered from as a result of a beating as a child made her fall asleep, at times, when she was leading a group of fleeing slaves toward freedom. When that occurred, her little band would gather around her protectively and stand guard until she woke up. She obviously had a terrible disability, but that didn't keep her from being the route to another territory.

Think about that as things unfold.

Read More...

Summary only...

A WORD AFTER A WORD AFTER A WORD

A word after a word after a word is power. --Margaret Atwood

As a writer, I'm grateful for the reminder of how dependent we are on our storytellers out on strike during this dismal holiday season, even as I miss them terribly. When I heard the corporate fobbing swag-bellied puttocks intended to flood the airwaves with even more "reality TV shows" (as if any of those situations or losers represent reality), I took an oath to find other ways to fill my time until the strike is over.

This oath is not particularly new. I've never seen a single episode of Survivor, Wife Swap, Big Brother, or the other crapola. I did watch part of an Amazing Race because some blog had mentioned there was a gay couple on it, but I lost interest rapidly and changed the channel. My one exception to the genre is Extreme House Makeover, because they actually help real people in dire trouble in a way that prolongs lives, creates exponentially more opportunities, and rewards poor/nonwhite/nontraditional families as if they deserved as much respect and faith as Ozzie and Harriet. And yeah, it's all about product placement and hype, I know, but I've followed up on those families, they actually benefit long-term. It's more than just a Sears circle-jerk.

(Patti LaBelle as winner of the Excellence in Media Award at the 18th Annual GLAAD Media Awards)

But: I broke my oath last week to check out the first night of Clash of the Choirs. Because, my god, it was Patti LaBelle heading up one of the choirs. I have to say, she definitely did not disappoint. Michael Bolton and his Connecticut milquetoasts were an embarrassment, and at least the country-western guy was honest in admitting he didn't have a fucking clue about anything except kicker music. But Patti blew them out of the hemisphere. I got hooked, in spite of myself. I learned that choirs don't have to sound like badly homogenized eunuchs (or Mormons), and I was fascinated with the all-too-brief glimpses of how Ms. LaBelle formed her musical judgments and pushed her pupils to perform dazzling displays above the rest.

I wound up taping and watching all five nights (taping was essential because I really couldn't sit through Bolton & Co.) And every single night, LaBelle's crew mopped up the floor with extremely original, ambitious, outrageously moving performances. But: the format relied on the standard "let the idiots with cellphones make the final decision" and even my cynical self could NOT BELIEVE IT when Nick Lachey (Mr. Jessica Simpson) was named the winner.

Gag me with the patriarchy. Gormless white boy beats out Patti LaBelle? Yeah, you just convince me it wasn't all those hip-hop-lovin' racist pasty-skinned suburbanite testosterone-poisoned BOYS who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a 50-something black WOMAN. I was utterly disgusted, most of all with myself for giving it a try.

Back to my oath.

And here's the thing: These "reality" shows are designed to bring out the worst in people. Designed to reinforce woman-hating and white supremacy. Even more, they are sops to distract us from the class war being waged with increasing ferocity against most of the population. Shadocat recently pointed out how many daytime shows have devolved into flashy giveaways to audience members, a high-tech throwback to the old Queen For A Day shtick of let's get everyone to believe help from drowning will eventually arrive. It's obscene.

If you care about the survival of unions, the compensation of merit over corporate greed, the value of diverse voices: Check out the Writer's Guild of America site and lend your solidarity. You can go here to find out ways to support a fair contract -- even if it's just writing an e-mail which they'll post, it makes a difference.

And if you'd like to create your own devastating insults such as the I used in the second sentence of this post, check out The Shakespearean Insult Kit for ideas. Language is at our disposal, and we don't have to be stupid or obscene to wield it with maximum effect.

Speaking of art and language...

(Ira and George Gershwin at work)

I watched the American Masters' special on George Gershwin yesterday, and was struck again by how what we think of as pop culture in this country would not exist without the outscale contributions of Jewish immigrants and African-Americans. Gershwin, coming from Russian Ashkenazic immigrant parents who were not in the least musical, still somehow found his way to a job on Tin Pan Alley by the age of 15, playing piano as if born to it and blending Hasidic longing with jazz and blues to create an unmistakable sound. He was especially dependent on his family for emotional sustenance -- never married and, from the sound of it, never even came close to it, although it doesn't seem he was a closet case, either.

It was deeply interesting to hear the two main stars of Porgy and Bess, who owe their roles in that smash to Gershwin's groundbreaking insistence that only blacks be cast for black parts, present two completely contradictory reactions to the fact that the first successful African-American opera was written by a white man: One of them, Todd Duncan, had no problem with it, and one of them, Anne Brown, said tactfully but with strong emotion "I just wonder what it would have looked like if it were written by someone who wasn't white." We'll wonder forever, won't we?

George's creativity found home port when his older brother Ira began creating the lyrics for his songs. They were temperamentally very different, but extremely close friends as well as collaborators, living a life joined in most aspects. Ira Gershwin was the first lyricist to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize (for Of Thee I Sing, a profoundly political and still radical script), and his ability to wed words to George's extraordinary music leaves me simply in awe. These brothers made an American art form of musical comedy.

During the late 70s and early 80s in San Francisco, almost weekly I stepped away from my intense role as a radical dyke activist to watch old movies at the Castro, York, Rialto, or other theaters around town. It was a habit I didn't talk about much with my serious revolutionary friends, but I can now see that it fueled my faith and creativity in profound ways. I had a movie-going buddy, Laurie, and the sum total of our relationship was Fred Astaire/Ginger Roger movies. We saw every one of them, more than once. A New York Jew, Laurie found validation of her culture somehow in those dances and melodies, while I reveled in the language and meter. Laurie, if you read this, write me. No, no, they can't take that away from me.

I began crying at the end of the PBS special, not over George's tragically early death at 38 (though I still consider it a great loss), but over the revelation that when he died, he had created the music for a final song with Ira but Ira didn't write the lyrics until after George was gone. That song was his goodbye to his beloved little brother, and no wonder it's one of my favorite of all time. Knowing the history has altered the meaning for me irrevocably for the better:

It's very clear
Our love is here to stay
Not for a year, but ever and a day

The radio
And the telephone
And the movies that we know
May just be passing fancies and in time may go

But oh my dear
Our love is here to stay
Together we're going a long long way

In time the Rockies may crumble
Gibraltar may tumble
They're only made of clay
But our love is here to stay

Read More...

Summary only...