On Being Naive

Recently, I’ve been called an “idealist,” in a scoffing, “you’re so naive about the way the world works” sort of way, in addition to being accused of having a “skewed view of the world” by several different people, in discussions of a few different topics.

Perhaps I am an idealist, but I certainly don’t have any “skewed” view of the world.

Rather, I expect more. I have high standards, for myself, and for others.

I don’t believe I should accept the world as is, because “that’s how it is.” That is because I believe in doing the right thing. I believe in conducting my life with integrity. I believe in respect. I believe in paying forward all the things that my mentors have taught me.

I have had a multitude of experiences that have taught me the importance of empathy, compassion, integrity, respect, activism, and recognizing that nothing is simple.

I give to others exactly what I’d want for myself–including a verbal smackdown if I fucked up.

I am not perfect, but I always strive to be better.

There is always a story. Much of what I’ve learned has a story behind it–personal experiences that have radically changed me. Truly awful experiences that have convinced me to change something–my views, my behavior, or something about the “way the world is.” I’ve met, worked with, befriended, or was taught by so many amazing people, and they have changed me, too. I’ve had amazing experiences that have changed me as well. I am indebted to all of those people, and all of these things.

The people who scoff at my supposed naivete are vastly underestimating me. And, you know? That’s alright. They haven’t gotten to know me, for the most part. Once they do, if they do, they’ll change their minds. Many people have changed their minds about me–and some of the people who, in the past, thought I was mean, or rude, or ignorant, are some of my closest friends today. We learned from one another–even if we don’t agree. And that’s fine. My friends are precious to me, and I’m so glad we took the time to look past our differing views of the world. I’m glad we took the time to understand one another, because now? We know better-we’ve learned, not just about “the other side” but also that behind the politics, we’re good people. I’ve changed minds; they’ve changed mine.

I’m a better person for it all–and you know what? I still have high standards. I still have boundaries. I still have deal-breakers.

If that means, to you, that my worldview is skewed–that doesn’t say a whole lot about me.

Pro-Choice in Kentucky

I am pro-choice. I am a resident of Kentucky.

Being pro-choice in a state that is widely regarded as a lost cause is not easy.

Kentucky isn’t a lost cause. Considering it one is losing half the battle.

Pro-choice Kentuckians are perpetually on the defensive–trying to stop restrictive legislation, stop funding from being cut, stop anti-choicers from harassing patients outside of clinics, stop the hatred and vitriol directed toward reproductive rights, and the people who believe in them.

Simply being openly pro-choice in Kentucky is activism. After all, anti-choicers have long held the pulpit here, painting caricatures of baby-hating, cold, anti-life, anti-woman  “pro-choicers.” I am none of those things–by being openly pro-choice, I am showing everyone around me that those caricatures are lies. I’m opening the door.

I talk about being pro-choice. People ask questions; I answer them. I give my friends, classmates, acquaintances, and neighbors a different perspective–describing reproductive rights by framing it in a way that’s relevant, in language that they will respond to. For instance, I often say that abortion is a form of self-defense–it is an action women may take in order to protect their bodies from the multitude of harms that may come from pregnancy. I say that only I can decide what happens to my body–nobody can use it without my permission, just like no one may break into my home even if they need shelter.

I write to my representatives–even the infamous Mitch McConnell. He doesn’t agree with me, and he won’t vote the way I want him to, but I still write. He needs to know that I exist, that I care, and that his ideology is abhorrent to me. I will oppose them. In other words, I’m watching. I’m voting. Think about that.

I write and reply to pro-choicers outside of Kentucky–I appeal, I plead, I rant, and I call for support. Stop dismissing Kentucky. Help us. Rally with us. Support pro-choice Kentuckians in our fight. It’s not hopeless. We help you–it’s time to help us. Don’t wait for some really abhorrent, anti-choice legislation to jump in. Let’s work together to keep it from ever getting to that point. Let’s change minds. Let’s change budgets. Let’s change laws.

I am a feminist. I am pro-choice. I am a Kentuckian.

Fun on Youtube: Saturday Night Edition

I laughed my ass off watching this video:

I was an RA for a year in college, so if you’re curious: yep. This is exactly how it is. And in my experience, especially the parts at 1:06 and 1:26.

To Those Who Don’t Understand the Decision Regarding Birth Control

Because I read HuffPo and Facebook comments, even though they drive me up the wall:

So, here’s how this new rule requiring full coverage of birth control works:

1. Insurance policies for all employers, save churches, must provide full coverage for birth control.

2. This is not violating religious freedom, or “keeping organizations from practicing there [sic] beliefs.” Women employed by a Catholic hospital, or a Baptist university aren’t there to “practice their beliefs.” They are working. For a paycheck. Also! For the benefits.

2a. An organization cannot be religious, or have beliefs–people have religious beliefs. Women that work at a Catholic hospital are just as free to practice their beliefs as before–they can take or not take birth control as they see fit. Many employees of these types of religious organizations do not have the same religious beliefs–it would be discriminatory to force a Baptist woman, for example, to follow the rules of Catholicism (to use my aunt as an example).

3. These religious organizations are not paying for the birth control–the employees pay for their own policies.

4. Let’s put this in a more abstract way–companies do not get to dictate the health care of their employees. Google cannot tell one of their programmers that they’re not going to offer an insurance plan that would cover surgeries. Zappo’s cannot decide that they’re not going to provide insurance policies that cover prescriptions. In short, employers do not, by and large, get to pick and choose which aspects of health care that their insurance policies will or will not cover.

5. Churches are exempt. Churches are exempt. CHURCHES ARE EXEMPT.

6. Employers have no goddamn business in the exam room with an employee and their doctor. Per-i-od.

 

Update: Tuscon Unified School District Bans Books

I’ve been spending some time today reading up on ARS 15-111/15-112, the law that has banned ethnic studies in Arizona, from whence the book ban came, and the people that are fighting it.

I had an idea in my last post, to send copies of the banned books to the students in the Tucson Unified School District, and a lot of people really like the idea. I plan to reach out, to see if this is a doable thing, but first, I want to do some reading. I want to find out what the people of Tucson are doing, what they want done, before I jump in, going all White Knight. I want to be a good ally, not some obnoxious fool jumping in to drain resources. (and I hope you do, too.)

I know you’re itching for some action, though (who isn’t?) so here’s what I’ve found so far:

SaveEthnicStudies.org has a petition on their site for you to sign. Here’s the text of the petition:

“We the undersigned support the effort to save ethnic studies in the Tucson Unified School District. The Mexican American Studies program poses no threat to the state of Arizona or its education system. On the contrary, it provides a proven-effective method to educate students and motivate them to stay in school and become productive leaders in their community.

We stand in opposition to State Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal’s attempt to withhold $15 million of state funding from the school district. This action is completely unwarranted given the results of the independent audit commissioned by the state, which found the program to be fully in compliance with Arizona’s ethnic studies ban. In fact, the audit recommended that the program be maintained as part of the core curriculum for high schools in the district.

The Mexican American Studies program should be applauded and replicated for its success, not destroyed by a pointless ban.”

So go sign it!

SaveEthnicStudies.org also has a ton of information: court documents, a background, a nice list of all the important players, news links, and other items of interest. If you’re an academic, journalist, or just a fan of primary documents, this is the place to go. Some pages, like the news page, haven’t been updated for a while, but the information is still very valuable for catching up on the background of this issue, especially if you’re not familiar with what’s been going on.

For discussion and links, check out the Save Ethnic Studies in Arizona Facebook page.

The National Council of La Raza is “the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States—works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans.  Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations, NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.  To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas—assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families.” Just glancing over, I can’t find a whole lot about the book ban in particular, but they’re the ones hosting the petition for SaveEthnicStudies.org, so it’s worth checking them out.

Occupy Tucson–look here for information on direct action, new items, and ways to support the community as it fights for itself.

Tucson Unified School District Bans Books

Remember when Arizona banned ethnic studies in the state’s schools?

Well.

The Tucson Unified school district has succumbed, deciding against fighting the measure, and has complied a list of books that are banned from the district’s classrooms.

from Brenda Norrell:

“Students said the banned books were seized from their classrooms and out of their hands, after Tucson schools banned Mexican American Studies, including a book of photos of Mexico. Crying, students said it was like Nazi Germany, and they were unable to sleep since it happened.”

This is unacceptable. Banning books is banning knowledge–just what is it that Tucson and Arizona officials do not want schoolchildren in Arizona to know?

Here is a shortlist of the books banned:

Pedagogy of the Oppressed by  Paolo Freire

Occupied America: A History of Chicanos by Rodolfo Acuña

Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years by Bill Bigelow and Bob Peterson

The Tempest by William Shakespeare

Chicano!: The History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement by Arturo Rosales

500 Years of Chicano History in Pictures by Elizabeth Martinez

Critical Race Theory by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

Evidently, anything where “race, ethnicity and oppression are central themes.”

The Tucson Citizen reports that OccupyTUSD will be holding a daily protest from 4-6pm at the school district headquarters.

I plan to add these books to my reading list–anything that John Huppenthal, the Tea Partier that was elected in 2010 to Arizona’s statewide superintendent of public instruction post, is so afraid of. (And really? Who the fuck elects a Tea Partier to an education post? Apparently Arizona. Come on, Arizona. What. The. Fuck.)

You know what I’d like to do, though? I’d like to send copies of these books to the students that had theirs snatched away from them. Let’s do that. Would anybody else like to do that?

Domestic Violence Shelter Renovating to Accommodate Pets

Why? Because a woman’s dog protected her from her abuser, physically covering her and taking the blows of the hammer itself–and the woman wouldn’t leave her dog behind. The director, moved, took her and her pooch in, and are now renovating the building to accommodate pets.

Go read the story. But if you’re anything like me, you’ll cry.

Sniff, sniff.

Really, though, I’m so glad the Rose Brooks Center is doing this. I hope more shelters will follow suit.

Update on NYT ‘Truth Vigilantes’ Post

Apparently, Arthur Brisbane thinks we’re all a bunch of idiots. He writes another column, which basically says “No! Wait! You misunderstood me! I asked [same question in previous column]!”

No really, Arthur, we got it. We understand.

What I didn’t cover in the last post is how the ‘Truth Vigilantes’ column’s comment section was shut down after 252 comments.

Most of us are veterans of the internet by now, and we all know what that means. Arthur didn’t like what commenters were saying, so the comments were closed.

It happened in the update, too, after only 46 comments.

It’s been my experience that news sites rarely close comments, even when the conversation degenerates to bigotry, insults, or is derailed by trolls. So, that’s an indicator of their barometer. These two columns are two instances where commenters on a mainstream news website agree, the conversation stays focused, and mostly civil (barring a few throwing insults regarding the author’s intelligence). Frankly, it’s amazing. I’ve never seen the like before.

I suppose this answers my question in my previous post–this isn’t a legitimate inquiry after all.

 

Should the NYT Report the Truth?

via Shakesville

Short answer: Well, NER.

I’m amazed that this question even has to be asked. Yet, in a way, I’m glad they did.

I’ve never thought much of journalism–this goes back to my days at WKU, which has, reportedly, a very good journalism program. I was of the opinion that journalism really shouldn’t be a separate field of study, and I expressed that opinion quite often. What was the point, I reasoned, when one could major in English, with a focus on writing? The journalism program pushed forth a very dry, bland writing style. Their stars were more reminiscent of a rabid tabloid columnist than anything else. The good writers that emerged from that program were good writers despite the program, not because of it.

What makes a good journalist is a combination of being a good writer and a decent person: write well, hunger for truth, ask the difficult questions, and always, when reporting, make known what your purpose is, and ask permission to quote.

Each genre of writing has a different purpose. The purpose of journalism is to inform, to educate, to spread truth and expose lies. Because of this, the public grants journalism an element of trust–the words of a journalist are trusted by the public to be true, to be the whole story.

Journalism, clearly, has betrayed that trust.

Perhaps this is the beginning of an effort to earn that trust again. However, it is a sign of how badly that trust has been betrayed when I wonder if this is an honest effort, or perhaps a marketing outreach to discover which market is larger: the one of truth or of lies.

The Public Good

I read this column a few days ago by Robert Reich on the Huffington Post. As I read, my reaction was “this. This. This this this this this. Yes.”

I knew I had to write about it. At the time, I couldn’t do it without copying and pasting the entire piece. Let’s see how I do today, shall we?

Take this quote:

What defines a society is a set of mutual benefits and duties embodied most visibly in public institutions — public schools, public libraries, public transportation, public hospitals, public parks, public museums, public recreation, public universities, and so on.

Public institutions are supported by all taxpayers, and are available to all.

This is my America. This is what I believe society, at its most basic and visible level, should be. This is why I don’t mind paying taxes, even though my eyes pop a wee bit every time I take the time to glace at more than my take-home income when I look at my paycheck stub. The way I see it, that is the price that I pay for living in this society. I have benefited from each and every single part of that list. I’ve attended public schools. I’ve been hospitalized in my city’s public hospitals. I made good use of the public transportation system as a teenager, and probably will again in the future. I played in the parks as a child, adolescent, teenager, and continue to enjoy them as an adult. (You cannot convince me that there is a better park system than the one here in Louisville. Even if I get lost in Cherokee Park, without fail, every time.) I have lived in the public libraries. I attended a public university. I have taken advantage of the museums and the recreation available in my fine state quite often, and am the better for it.

All of these things have kept me alive, kept me sane, kept me fulfilled and learning, and have in a very big way, shaped me into the person I am today. It would be ungrateful of me to not pay society back for everything that it has given me–and it would be irresponsible of me to do anything less but to “pay it forward” so that those who come after me may take full advantage of them as well.

If I hadn’t made use of these things? It is still my responsibility, as a member of society, to support these institutions, including defending them from disintegration and dismantlement. Even if these things hadn’t personally, directly benefited me, they are valuable and vital parts of our society. The public hospitals have saved people’s lives. The parks have provided joy, delight, enjoyment, peace, and exercise to millions. The schools teach the community’s children, introduce them to a world bigger than they imagined, spark their imagination, and enable them to become informed, engaged, enlightened, and productive members that contribute to our society. The universities open up the world even more, and provide us with new knowledge, and give its’ students new experiences and knowledge that will stay with them forever. The libraries and museums do the same–provide knowledge, expand imaginations, as well as to allow people to connect with history and other people in ways that no other institution could. And public transportation allows people a cheap, accessible, reliable means of getting to all of these places and more. Even if these things hadn’t directly benefited me, the ways that they enrich the lives of everyone living within that society does benefit me. It also benefits society, which, in turn, also benefits me.

All of these things are for the public good–and that is why the public must support them, financially and otherwise.

Much of what’s called “public” is increasingly a private good paid for by users — ever-higher tolls on public highways and public bridges, higher tuitions at so-called public universities, higher admission fees at public parks and public museums.

These higher direct costs are making these public goods accessible to fewer and fewer members of society. This negatively affects the whole–not just those who can no longer afford to access these things. I’d add another to this list–the rising prices of bus tickets and passes, and the corresponding reduction of service.

The great expansion of public institutions in America began in the early years of 20th century when progressive reformers championed the idea that we all benefit from public goods. Excellent schools, roads, parks, playgrounds, and transit systems would knit the new industrial society together, create better citizens, and generate widespread prosperity. Education, for example, was less a personal investment than a public good — improving the entire community and ultimately the nation.

We idealize the individual–but some things cannot be accomplished by an individual. Some things cannot be provided for by an individual. There are times when a community must band together, whether that be to protect, provide, or to enrich each member of the community. These things? Are it, and more. For the public good.