So I'm listening to Terry Gross's recent interview with Chloris Leachman as I wait in line for the security check at 850 Bryant, where I was reporting for jury duty. Long line, chains, uniformed officers, men removing their belts, etc. I really had to suppress a giggle when the following clip from the Mel Brooks film High Anxiety played just as I got near the front of the line:
NURSE DIESEL (Chloris Leachman): You're making too much noise.
DR. MONTAGUE (Harvey Korman): I can't help it, you're hurting me. You're going too hard tonight.
DIESEL: Oh, get off it. I know you better than you know yourself. You live for bondage and discipline.
MONTAGUE: Too much bondage. Too much bondage! Not enough discipline!
DIESEL: You want discipline? I'll give you discipline.
MONTAGUE: Yes! Yes. I'm sorry! Yes! It feels so good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u1jtxkgEdQ
Friday, June 5, 2009
Reagan and AIDS
Comment in response to article on Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/politics/140438/was_ronald_reagan_an_even_worse_president_than_george_w._bush/?page=4
Was Ronald Reagan an Even Worse President Than George W. Bush?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted June 5, 2009.
Posted by: laweat on Jun 5, 2009 1:53 PM
Robert Parry's main thesis is strongly reinforced by the amount of additional evidence cited in these comments. One writer (so far) has mentioned AIDS, but Reagan's abdication of responsibility for the emerging AIDS epidemic deserves a closer look. Reagan was in a unique position to provide leadership to curb the spread of AIDS when it mattered most. His failure in this regard was shocking and, many would argue, criminal. Not only did he famously refuse to speak of AIDS until 1987, but he and his allies in the "religious right" ensured the suppression of effective public health responses and nurtured an atmosphere of fear and stigma that caused great suffering. In the long run, Reagan's inaction and hostility to minority communities surely helped catalyze the global epidemic we know today.
According to a 2004 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.... [T]he tragedy lies in what he might have done. Today [2004], the World Health Organization estimates that more than 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide. An estimated 5 million people were newly infected and 3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 alone.
Was Ronald Reagan an Even Worse President Than George W. Bush?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted June 5, 2009.
Posted by: laweat on Jun 5, 2009 1:53 PM
Robert Parry's main thesis is strongly reinforced by the amount of additional evidence cited in these comments. One writer (so far) has mentioned AIDS, but Reagan's abdication of responsibility for the emerging AIDS epidemic deserves a closer look. Reagan was in a unique position to provide leadership to curb the spread of AIDS when it mattered most. His failure in this regard was shocking and, many would argue, criminal. Not only did he famously refuse to speak of AIDS until 1987, but he and his allies in the "religious right" ensured the suppression of effective public health responses and nurtured an atmosphere of fear and stigma that caused great suffering. In the long run, Reagan's inaction and hostility to minority communities surely helped catalyze the global epidemic we know today.
According to a 2004 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.... [T]he tragedy lies in what he might have done. Today [2004], the World Health Organization estimates that more than 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide. An estimated 5 million people were newly infected and 3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 alone.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Juan Williams, Sonia Sotomayor, and me.
How do you know when it's a good time to speak up? What if it doesn't matter? What if it never matters? How do you know what to say? What if you say something stupid, or you offend someone? How hard should you work to get it "just right?" What if you wasted an entire day when you should be finding a job? How do you decide which cause most deserves your time and energy (e.g., Sotomayor or Prop 8)? What if nobody cares anyway?
Today I spent too much time on Facebook:
> I marveled at Laura Kanter's tireless efforts toward defeating Prop 8, as evidenced by her Orange County contingent at last Saturday's Meet In The Middle rally in Fresno, and her multiple Facebook postings today.
> I was impressed by Megan Caron's letter to the editor supporting marriage equality in NH.
> Holley Daschbach's FB comment about Rush Limbaugh jogged my memory & prompted me to comment on my FB page that I was shocked to hear Scott Simon and Juan Williams parroting right-wing talking points re: Sonia Sotomayor's alleged "racism" on NPR's Sat. Weekend Edition.
> I received comments in reply that supported Juan Williams' position (!).
> I wrote a letter to the NPR Ombudsman expressing my disappointment with their willingness to jump on the topsy-turvy bandwagon where the Latina is the dangerously ethnocentric racist, but apparently it isn't relevant to consider the fact that 106 out of 110 Supreme Court justices have been white & male.
Here's my letter...
TO: NPR OMBUDSMAN
FROM: LAWRENCE EATON
DATE: 6/1/09
I was disappointed to hear Scott Simon and Juan Williams parroting Rush Limbaugh on Saturday’s Weekend Edition. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104750981&ft=1&f=1001
Simon framed their discussion of the Sotomayor "controversy" by asking what would happen if a white male judge said, "I would hope that a wise white man (etc.)...." Williams replied that "...on the face of it Scott, you'd have to say that her language… was racist."
I'm not objecting to NPR's regurgitation of right wing talking points per se. (See http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270013) I'm concerned about the lack of context or critical analysis.
I believe the Simon/Williams exchange rests on false premises: First, that a similarly worded hypothetical remark by a white judge would be equivalent in meaning and impact to the Sotmayor statement. Second, that acknowledging the benefits of a worldview shaped by minority status is an indication of “racism.” By accepting these premises uncritically, NPR distorted the meaning of Sotomayor's speech.
This view maintains a façade of credibility only by ignoring the nearly total dominance of white males throughout the Supreme Court’s history and the degree to which the Court’s reasoning and decisions have been undeniably influenced by the life experiences and collateral worldviews of lifelong members of the dominant culture. (106 out of 110 white male judges weren’t racist, but Sotmayor is?)
I was surprised to hear NPR commentators focusing on this phantom controversy while neglecting to define racism or discuss the actual history of race and gender-based bias on the Court. At best, this discussion lacked the kind of critical analysis we depend on NPR to provide. At worst, it is evidence that mainstream discourse about racism is consistently framed in a way that favors the dominant culture’s self-serving distortions.
I expect that kind of thing from Rush Limbaugh, but do NPR commentators really lack the insight to ask “is anything wrong with this picture?”
Today I spent too much time on Facebook:
> I marveled at Laura Kanter's tireless efforts toward defeating Prop 8, as evidenced by her Orange County contingent at last Saturday's Meet In The Middle rally in Fresno, and her multiple Facebook postings today.
> I was impressed by Megan Caron's letter to the editor supporting marriage equality in NH.
> Holley Daschbach's FB comment about Rush Limbaugh jogged my memory & prompted me to comment on my FB page that I was shocked to hear Scott Simon and Juan Williams parroting right-wing talking points re: Sonia Sotomayor's alleged "racism" on NPR's Sat. Weekend Edition.
> I received comments in reply that supported Juan Williams' position (!).
> I wrote a letter to the NPR Ombudsman expressing my disappointment with their willingness to jump on the topsy-turvy bandwagon where the Latina is the dangerously ethnocentric racist, but apparently it isn't relevant to consider the fact that 106 out of 110 Supreme Court justices have been white & male.
Here's my letter...
TO: NPR OMBUDSMAN
FROM: LAWRENCE EATON
DATE: 6/1/09
I was disappointed to hear Scott Simon and Juan Williams parroting Rush Limbaugh on Saturday’s Weekend Edition. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104750981&ft=1&f=1001
Simon framed their discussion of the Sotomayor "controversy" by asking what would happen if a white male judge said, "I would hope that a wise white man (etc.)...." Williams replied that "...on the face of it Scott, you'd have to say that her language… was racist."
I'm not objecting to NPR's regurgitation of right wing talking points per se. (See http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270013) I'm concerned about the lack of context or critical analysis.
I believe the Simon/Williams exchange rests on false premises: First, that a similarly worded hypothetical remark by a white judge would be equivalent in meaning and impact to the Sotmayor statement. Second, that acknowledging the benefits of a worldview shaped by minority status is an indication of “racism.” By accepting these premises uncritically, NPR distorted the meaning of Sotomayor's speech.
This view maintains a façade of credibility only by ignoring the nearly total dominance of white males throughout the Supreme Court’s history and the degree to which the Court’s reasoning and decisions have been undeniably influenced by the life experiences and collateral worldviews of lifelong members of the dominant culture. (106 out of 110 white male judges weren’t racist, but Sotmayor is?)
I was surprised to hear NPR commentators focusing on this phantom controversy while neglecting to define racism or discuss the actual history of race and gender-based bias on the Court. At best, this discussion lacked the kind of critical analysis we depend on NPR to provide. At worst, it is evidence that mainstream discourse about racism is consistently framed in a way that favors the dominant culture’s self-serving distortions.
I expect that kind of thing from Rush Limbaugh, but do NPR commentators really lack the insight to ask “is anything wrong with this picture?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)