Those Wings Block Hatred

For a few moments, I stood there and looked to the distance. A student named Paul paced up and down the concourse of five of us, getting uncomfortably close, half-smirking, asking us what we believed in. "Talk to me," he urged, "you can talk."



This went on for a few days almost dutifully. Each afternoon, later, when the dipping sun stained the ground orange and the wind picked up along the corridors of the mall. Unseasonably cool at times, we could not prepare all that well for a chilly evening but we felt resolve at being silent for far too long. The wings came off and the vengeance took its place.

You see, Brother Jed has been a fixture on our campus for many years. A sensationalist firebrand certainly to a fault, Jed preaches condemnation for a number of sins including masturbation, fornication, homosexuality, lying, theft, adultery, and improper dress and manners. His damnations are interspersed with flashbacks of his former life as a participant in the hippie movement, working as a counselor at a college (and having no shame about sleeping with young women who sought his help), and traveling to Northern Africa to study under a yogi prior to converting to Christianity. Jed, along with his wife and children, identifies as a non-denominational Christian, though his overemphasis on the teachings of the Old Testament sound suspiciously Southern Baptist to me.

If anything, he is successful at drawing a crowd, and students in attendance have reported that they have never seen so many gather around.

President Shelton might have cause for alarm considering the number of students willing to skip class so that they may sunbathe and heckle the preacher and his party. I, for one, am happy to carry a sign at least once during his visits with some contrarian message. The first was "Free hugs for the damned." The second: "On the twelfth day, Jesus said, 'That's not what the fuck I meant!' " Apparently, some other kid counterpreaching the salvation of one certain Ceiling Cat has copied my phrase onto his own sign. Another student with spray-painted silver hair yells similar concerns about having been misquoted from the writers of the Bible. A few men on bicycles have circled him while speaking, some gay students usually feel comfortable hugging, kissing, or undressing during his homosexuality sermons, and one girl surprised me by flashing him. While rumors circulate of him having chased students whom have shared lewd gestures, Jed has behaved himself thus far. He simply replies that women can't help but expose themselves in his presence.

I, in turn, threw up a little.

The angels stood steadfast, silent despite goading. On the third day, they turned their backs to the heckler and faced the crowd, dutifully handing out pocket flyers. In addition to protesting Jed's presence, the group, representing the university's Pride Alliance, commemorated the ten-year anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard. Their message seems simple enough: that so long as people are allowed to preach hate, disadvantaged groups will continue to be the targets of that hatred and atrocities will continue to surface unless more proactive stands are taken. This means supporting and strengthening hate crime legislation, for certain, and to take stronger measures toward generating real legal equalities for members of minority groups.

One activist, Kira Johnson, used utilities on Facebook to express her pride and gratitude for her fellow participants. She says:

You guys are all amazing. My friend from work sent me an angel...so I felt it necessary to send all of my angels an angel. Keep up all of your hard work. I know it gets a bit windy out there and we all feel like human kites, but you have to remember why we are out there: to send a positive message to those walking by and tell them that Brother Jed's words cannot and will not reach everyone! I love you all, and you are all angels in my eyes.

I believe in my heart of hearts that Jed honestly believes that he is doing what his Creator intends for him to do; it's the execution that fails miserably. Students openly and unabashedly heckle him and his wife for their tirades, yet feel equally frustrated by being rebuffed for their honest questions. It is when the free speech area closes down for the day that students talk among themselves about faith, life, good and evil, and the deeper meaning of spirituality -- responses that I deeply appreciate even in my own journey of becoming a "good agnostic," if you will. For me, the challenge is in proving the existence of a sound moral sensibility without the spoonfeeding of organized religion. Needless to say, Sister Cindy simply advised me to become a Christian. I echoed the very same face of discontent as someone who felt as if they were not being listened to.

The good reverend has extended his stay through Tuesday of next week. The angels will stand guard, and we will take our place on the knoll. We will boo, shout, jeer, and wrestle. We will hug and cheer each other in our cogence, and we will support each other with sympathetic ears whenever we feel misunderstood. The real irony is that the heathen shows more openness than the disciple.

The Pummeling

Two in a row! Another entry that needs no such introduction. This is an eleven-minute segment of the unedited (save the profanity) interview between The Daily Show's Jon Stewart and Mad Money's stock guru, Jim Cramer, regarding the recent development of a feud and Stewart's ongoing concern with investors heeding unsound business advice.

The last time I saw such a grilling on air, Oprah Winfrey reamed author James Frey on a sordid lack of truthfulness in his autobiographical A Million Little Pieces. According to Frey's Wikipedia article, he lost a number of publishing deals and publicist representation until his most recent title, Bright Shiny Morning. This editor is a lot less certain about Cramer's fate.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Rachel Maddow, political commentator of her self-titled show on MSNBC, called it a "pummeling" with the obligatory "again and again and again" suffix.

The point of the matter: Jon Stewart has the power to say what I think a lot of us would say if we had a few minutes of televised coverage with some banker, hedge fundist, or politician. With news outlets reporting that this is the fourth day of increase for the Dow Stock Market, I cannot in full confidence believe that we hit our turning points just a few days after my birthday. Stewart is a reminder that despite whatever positive fluctuations we experience with economic recovery efforts underway, the everyday American people -- the real us -- demand explanations and reparations.

Prepare to get roasted, people of the bubble.

Preach On, Preacher Man!

Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer, one of the head architects who built up the Religious Right movement in the 1970s, speaks plainly and honestly about what Republicans will do to run this country off course.



Schaeffer is the author of the book, Crazy for God, which depicts the long-standing infatuations between the Republicans and the Religious Right and the evolution of their cultural base. You can read his open letter here.

The man clearly speaks for himself and needs no elaboration. Take a good look.

Update:
Some poignant prose from one of Schaeffer's posts on The Huffington Post, and especially appropriate considering the vast, unreasonable blocking of Sonia Sotomayor:

There came a day in 1985 (my dad had died in 1984) that I began to take another look at my commitment to the both the far right of Republican Party and the Religious Right. I came to realize that I was in bed with a group of people who were profoundly anti-American. They were professional haters. They wrapped themselves in the flag and "loved America," but it was an America in their imaginations only and cast in their image: white, middle-class, straight, born-again, homophobic and tinged with racism, not to mention misogyny.

Health Care is a Privilege?

MSNBC interviews Congressman Zach Wamp (R-TN) for his take on Obama's decision to host a summit regarding how we can overhaul health care and reduce costs.

Look. I have five dollars in my wallet. I will gladly mail it to any Republican official who can debate Obama's policies without referencing the words "socialist," "Communist," or "Marxist." Go.

Second, I admit to having a tough time following Wamp's logic on this. He claims that "warning signs should go up" because the president is looking to reclaim expenditures already dedicated to programs that, get this, aren't working. And say that Wamp does have it right -- that cutting will come from Medicare -- if the cut ends up restoring overall coverage, then there is no cutting. Everyone gets the coverage.

"Half" is certainly some ephemeral number drudged up from unsecured talking points. Here's what I heard.

Health care is a privilege... for some and a right for others, though the distinction depends upon illegal immigration. Granted. And for the rest of us here legally? What say he? Some ubiquitous "half."

Wamp believes that employees have a right to reject health care coverage provided by their employer, presumably so that they can shop the industry market to get a better deal. Okay, that's fine. But wait, the congressman implied that people just aren't on health care and are engaging in the risky behavior of avoiding illness. "They" end up in the emergency room getting sick; taxpayers make up the loss. So, it seems the onus is on the very people Wamp champions in choosing alternative arrangements of health care -- in this case, ditching it to save a few bucks on their checks!

But what I don't understand is how Republicans continue to paint insurance-based care as something that we can search for like we would for a good deal on eBay. Shopping does not address existing barriers to health care service, including but not limited to accessibility, ease of use, transparency regarding benefits, and tailoring a comprehensive package to best suit needs.

My employer, the University, squanders $1,850 per year so that I can save maybe 30% to 60% on incurred costs, for which I would need to pay somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 before I can receive remuneration. I do fine if I need to get an annual physical or maybe if I have a troublesome cough, but should anything worse happen, I would be equally screwed if I were on my own in the market. Considering how difficult it is to retain graduate student funding after the fourth year nowadays, I would rather drop health benefits to trade for tuition dollars. And most students have to work extra jobs, take out loans, and rub nickels into quarters. The last thing we need is yet another program that doesn't work.

Clearly, it is more telling that Wamp can simply opine "...extending health care to the people that need it, not turning the whole health care system over to the government." His alternative? Give a tax incentive to people who have health insurance. But if insurers respond by driving up premiums across the board, the cost outweighs the benefit. The insurer keeps more money, provides less service, and the patient is in trouble when it comes time to cash in a benefit, especially for chronic illness like heart disease or the many equity-obliterating forms of cancer.

This, of course, is coming from a man who is also provide free health care at our expense.

Feigning Ignorance

"There will be no Easter Egg hunt this year," read the e-mailer.



Perhaps Mayor Dean Grose of Los Alamitos, California intended it as a joke. Grose apologized for his actions, claiming, "Bottom line is, we laugh at things and I didn't see this in the same light she did." (She) refers to businesswoman, city volunteer, and board service member, Keyanus Price, who is African-American. Grose continues, "I'm sorry. It wasn't sent to offend her personally -- or anyone -- from the standpoint of the African-American race." Apparently, the apology falls on relatively deaf ears from his constituents and readers of the Associated Press. Grose will resign as mayor, effective tomorrow, but will stay on as a city councilman.

Grose said he was not aware of the stereotype involving blacks having a certain liking for watermelon.

It was a little over five months ago that Chafee County Republicans president, Diane Fedele, cried ignorance in a much more subtle manner. Her group sent out an e-mail and hard copy newsletter to some 200 members with the following image:



Fedele claims that the picture was in response to Obama's statement about race and not sharing a resemblance with presidents featured on United States currency, and that it was a gross effort for him to insert race into the presidential campaign. She found the statement outrageous, but immediately followed up with a reluctance to comment further and an apology to her club members, which includes a few African-American women who were particularly upset about the image. The original message might have salted the wound too roughly:

Obama talks about all those presidents that got their names on bills. If elected, what bill would he be on????? Food Stamps, what else!

Regarding the images of fried chicken, watermelon, and ribs: "It was just food to me."

And a month prior, vendors Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss of Tennessee peddled ten-dollar boxes of Obama Waffles, pledging not ignorance to stereotyping but rather a defiant huffing about personality-branded marketing that is no different than Newman's Own or Aunt Jemima. The food stuff is a political satire response to their opinions about Obama's policy formation.



In the interests of web space, I'll simply link to Daily Kos, which includes video coverage of the entire box. The Waffles box includes illustrations of Obama in an Arab headdress, with a sombrero digging against immigration, an insistence to point the top of the box toward Mecca, a recipe "rap," and a cheesy grin from Lou Dobbs.

At least they didn't offer a half-hearted apology, which is all the more staggering since media mogul Rupert Murdoch held his head down in a mea culpa to New York Post readers from the inclusion of a controversial cartoon by Sean Delonas released a couple of weeks ago.



Valentino, Hutchins, and White studied the impact of subtle racial cues on political preferences. They argued that while the underlying mechanisms were still difficult to parse, implicit racial cues still prime racial (and potentially racist) attitudes and that counter-stereotypical cues dampen such priming. They argue that the imagery goes beyond the symbols present in the advertisement -- the waffle picture, the ribs, the watermelon -- and taps into how persons in the experiment synthesize meanings when looking at the cues. Thus, Grose and Federa and the waffle guys are missing the point entirely when stating that the images chosen were relatively innocuous. People look at this stuff and interpret it in context of stereotypical cultural learnings acquired through life experiences.

That said, though, the argument tends to go like this. Person A may embrace a stereotypical attitude and perform some cue to offend person B party to the derogatory group. A reacts with emotional surprise -- whoa, you got it all wrong! -- primed from B's reaction. The point of the first offense is awash in emotional reactivity, and the substance of the matter is lost altogether. A similar phenomenon happens when people have differing religious or historical beliefs being discussed in an open forum. When one party agrees with a particular interpretation -- for example, white privilege -- minorities cheer while whites insinuate that they weren't the slavedrivers. Or if some Christians are more open and respectful to their homosexual counterparts, even if the Bible preaches condemnation toward their sexual expressions.

I, for one, am not surprised by the ribs and the chicken and the watermelon. I want to believe in my heart of hearts that people are better than their stereotypical assumptions, but I also recognize that as economies fail and politicians make decisions built upon rhetoric and slander, that people can take more comfort in their slantings. Misfortunate breeds discontent and disdain. We can hope that President Obama serves as a strong enough counter-stereotypic response for Black America, but I think if you were sufficiently racist to begin with, then there is no turning back from that. Perhaps that is preferable. If someone is racist and is relatively unapologetic about it, at least let me know that upfront so that I can distance myself from you. You can believe what you want so long as it doesn't impede on me, whether we are being forthright about our country's history of racial violence or for something more benign (comparatively) like a racist joke.

Just don't offer a half-hearted apology, or pretend that you didn't know, or claim that one of your best friends is black, please. These cultural symbols, as troubling as they are, are quite pervasive.