greetings all,
i've decided to accept an offer to be one of the bloggers for the newly launched huffington post religion page: http://www.huffingtonpost.com. i am hoping it will make me a bit more disciplined blogger and also give one black woman thinking theologically a larger audience.
see you soon once they get the religion page up and running. my first blog will be a reflection based on the 44th anniversary of the first attempt by civil rights protesters to march from selma to montgomery, alabama in support of black voting rights.
best to all,
emt
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
tiger, tiger...
i did not sit in front of the television and watch tiger woods' apology this past friday morning. i was attending to more important things and watched it later that night in an espn special report. what? a special report about a man admitting that he had been unfaithful to his wife--by press accounts, several times? rather than go into the more standard analysis of why we put extremely talented sports figures on high pedestals or that there have been signs since he first left college to join the pga tour to make millions that he needed to mature much more in terms of how he deals with folks interpersonally, i am more intrigued with the fact that several reports covered the kind of script that these apologies need to give:
us? there was one point that i had absolutely no quarrel with that woods said--this is between him and his wife when it comes to his unfaithfulness. sponsors will do what makes the most sense for them to keep up a profitable bottom line--they are not part of morality play. a couple, who has never invited us into their marriage, are well within their bounds to say that we will not have entry now. my hope for them is that both of them are finding ways to be honest with each other to be clear about their expectations of themselves and of each other and that they make a decision that is good for them and their children.
the fact that the apology followed a script, of sorts, is barely worth dwelling on in my estimate. that he said he was sorry, that he apologized to those who believed in his integrity and found that belief misplaced, that he committed himself to making sure his charities do not suffer, and so on--all well and good.
but i am left with a nagging question through all of this. do we tend to mistake athletic skill for integrity in our elite athletes? from pete rose to mark mcquire to charles barkely (who was clear he wanted no part of being a role model) to tonya harding, we seem to equate athletic prowess with having good sense and/or common sense and integrity. we follow this pattern with other professions as well.
true enough, those of us in the public eye cede some of our privacy such that our human foibles can become the stuff of gossip and speculation. and i am not arguing that we need to be given a pass in this regard, it is part of the territory. but when folks, so personalize folks like woods that i hear things like "i can never forgive him," i think we've gone too far. woods will have to deal with the fact that he broke a vow he made to his wife (and children), that he lied to her and them.
- no tie, open collar shirt with a jacket (he did)
- no script, speak from memory (he didn't)
- keep it short (he didn't)
- look contrite (he looked awfully uncomfortable and if that is the twin of contrite, he was)
- take questions (he didn't)
- keep it open to the public (he didn't)
us? there was one point that i had absolutely no quarrel with that woods said--this is between him and his wife when it comes to his unfaithfulness. sponsors will do what makes the most sense for them to keep up a profitable bottom line--they are not part of morality play. a couple, who has never invited us into their marriage, are well within their bounds to say that we will not have entry now. my hope for them is that both of them are finding ways to be honest with each other to be clear about their expectations of themselves and of each other and that they make a decision that is good for them and their children.
the fact that the apology followed a script, of sorts, is barely worth dwelling on in my estimate. that he said he was sorry, that he apologized to those who believed in his integrity and found that belief misplaced, that he committed himself to making sure his charities do not suffer, and so on--all well and good.
but i am left with a nagging question through all of this. do we tend to mistake athletic skill for integrity in our elite athletes? from pete rose to mark mcquire to charles barkely (who was clear he wanted no part of being a role model) to tonya harding, we seem to equate athletic prowess with having good sense and/or common sense and integrity. we follow this pattern with other professions as well.
true enough, those of us in the public eye cede some of our privacy such that our human foibles can become the stuff of gossip and speculation. and i am not arguing that we need to be given a pass in this regard, it is part of the territory. but when folks, so personalize folks like woods that i hear things like "i can never forgive him," i think we've gone too far. woods will have to deal with the fact that he broke a vow he made to his wife (and children), that he lied to her and them.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
mourning lucille clifton
less than a day after learning of poet lucille clifton's death, a news report flashes across my television that henry louis gates has donated the handcuffs from his arrest to the smithsonian.
over the last several months, i've been away from this blog due to the demands of work and simply trying to keep my head above water as i've tried to survive a tide of conservative backlash against president obama with its assurances that he has been a do nothing irrelevant president. quite odd from folks who have consistently stonewalled any efforts at bipartisanship and have consistently acted as if he was not duly elected. it fails to recognize the over 90 actions he has taken--some small and many quite significant--since taking office a little over a year ago. no, i've not always been pleased with all of them, but obama is a far cry from previous presidents who slept their way through office or let others actually run the government for them.
and then there is the disturbing case of the baptist missionaries who have been charged with kidnapping haitian children after the earthquake. when coupled with the ahistorical and inane remarks of pat robertson (who always seems to have something outrageous to say just at the moment when no one is paying him any attention) that the people of haiti made a pact with the devil that prompted the earthquake, the tragedy in haiti grows and stains our hands. robertson's "analysis" is classic historical revisionism wrapped in ignorance about actual historical fact. it also absolves the united states and some european nations from their role of systematically boycotting haiti when it won it's independence in 1804. a systematically crippled infrastructure and decades of economic sanctions and a near 20 year u.s. occupation of the country are important factors in the poor building construction that exacerbated the effects of the earthquake. we have a troubling habit of blaming nature or god when human (il)design exacerbates natural events.
on another front, many of us are shaken by the murder of three tenured biology professors by a colleague who was denied tenure. it's too early to know the whys of the killer's actions, but i am left deeply troubled by the images of the deceased and the alleged killer and the possible role that class, geography, and race may have played in a tenure decision and a colleague's deadly reaction.
we have lucille clifton's words to help us through these times. i will, however, miss her voice reading her words. she was here at yale a year or so ago. elizabeth alexander had the great foresight to bring her back for what was her last reading here. we knew her health was failing, but her voice was strong and her mind was clear as she read and talked with us that night. afterward at dinner, she delighted us with stories of life and living and listened closely at our talk talk as well. it was a wonderful evening with words and laughter and good food and drink. it is her voice that lingers with me from that evening and the times i've heard her read her poetry. i am glad to have that voice to turn to when i leaf though her poetry collections and linger over a favorite poem or my eye catches on one of her marvelous turn of phrases.
those handcuffs in the smithsonian do nothing for me.
over the last several months, i've been away from this blog due to the demands of work and simply trying to keep my head above water as i've tried to survive a tide of conservative backlash against president obama with its assurances that he has been a do nothing irrelevant president. quite odd from folks who have consistently stonewalled any efforts at bipartisanship and have consistently acted as if he was not duly elected. it fails to recognize the over 90 actions he has taken--some small and many quite significant--since taking office a little over a year ago. no, i've not always been pleased with all of them, but obama is a far cry from previous presidents who slept their way through office or let others actually run the government for them.
and then there is the disturbing case of the baptist missionaries who have been charged with kidnapping haitian children after the earthquake. when coupled with the ahistorical and inane remarks of pat robertson (who always seems to have something outrageous to say just at the moment when no one is paying him any attention) that the people of haiti made a pact with the devil that prompted the earthquake, the tragedy in haiti grows and stains our hands. robertson's "analysis" is classic historical revisionism wrapped in ignorance about actual historical fact. it also absolves the united states and some european nations from their role of systematically boycotting haiti when it won it's independence in 1804. a systematically crippled infrastructure and decades of economic sanctions and a near 20 year u.s. occupation of the country are important factors in the poor building construction that exacerbated the effects of the earthquake. we have a troubling habit of blaming nature or god when human (il)design exacerbates natural events.
on another front, many of us are shaken by the murder of three tenured biology professors by a colleague who was denied tenure. it's too early to know the whys of the killer's actions, but i am left deeply troubled by the images of the deceased and the alleged killer and the possible role that class, geography, and race may have played in a tenure decision and a colleague's deadly reaction.
we have lucille clifton's words to help us through these times. i will, however, miss her voice reading her words. she was here at yale a year or so ago. elizabeth alexander had the great foresight to bring her back for what was her last reading here. we knew her health was failing, but her voice was strong and her mind was clear as she read and talked with us that night. afterward at dinner, she delighted us with stories of life and living and listened closely at our talk talk as well. it was a wonderful evening with words and laughter and good food and drink. it is her voice that lingers with me from that evening and the times i've heard her read her poetry. i am glad to have that voice to turn to when i leaf though her poetry collections and linger over a favorite poem or my eye catches on one of her marvelous turn of phrases.
those handcuffs in the smithsonian do nothing for me.
Friday, September 18, 2009
struggling to draw a full breath
many folks have written or called to offer their prayers. many thanks to you all.
this has been a difficult time for many of us at yale. the murder of annie le is a tragedy that, for us, has no national dimensions. it is personal and it is tragic and it has many of us looking over our shoulders in new ways (the old ways providing the template). the intrusive posture of the media has not helped. they want a story. we want to grieve, understand our confusion, allow our anger its proper space, acknowledge our fear, find a way to be supportive of and/or caring for two families who have been decimated by violence. because le's body was not found for 8 days in a space that was not cool. this means that it had so deteriorated that the only way they could id her was through dna testing. imagine what it is like to tell a mother that it's best that you not see your child because she no longer looks human. imagine what it is like to tell a family that you will have to say your final goodbyes through memories alone.
true, we live in a country where violent, senseless killing goes on each day. for me, this is not about the way in which the status of yale and its elite student body has made this a national case. media can do what they want and have done so. no, this is about violence against women, senseless murder, and the fact that any of us could be victims of such violence--including men. but if, as i suspect is the case, it proves to be that this was a crime of alleged passion, it once again brings to every woman and man full face the way in which women who say "no!" are not listened to and at times silenced permanently. in short, we are seen if not treated as property that can be used or discarded by violent whim.
i am used to going through my days on low level alert--scanning my surroundings because being a professor at an elite institution does not trump my blackness or my femaleness or my sexual orientation. but my alert mechanism has dialed itself up a notch or two. and i am not alone on this campus in this regard. secretaries and administrative assistants (who are overwhelmingly women) across the campus are having hushed and not so hushed conversations about their safety. some are afraid because they work in offices where the traffic patterns are episodic and the building can be relatively quiet for long stretches. there are counseling services available to all of us and some are using them. but it will take time for the trauma to subside for many of us and for us to be able to go on. but it's doubtful we will forget.
this has been a difficult time for many of us at yale. the murder of annie le is a tragedy that, for us, has no national dimensions. it is personal and it is tragic and it has many of us looking over our shoulders in new ways (the old ways providing the template). the intrusive posture of the media has not helped. they want a story. we want to grieve, understand our confusion, allow our anger its proper space, acknowledge our fear, find a way to be supportive of and/or caring for two families who have been decimated by violence. because le's body was not found for 8 days in a space that was not cool. this means that it had so deteriorated that the only way they could id her was through dna testing. imagine what it is like to tell a mother that it's best that you not see your child because she no longer looks human. imagine what it is like to tell a family that you will have to say your final goodbyes through memories alone.
true, we live in a country where violent, senseless killing goes on each day. for me, this is not about the way in which the status of yale and its elite student body has made this a national case. media can do what they want and have done so. no, this is about violence against women, senseless murder, and the fact that any of us could be victims of such violence--including men. but if, as i suspect is the case, it proves to be that this was a crime of alleged passion, it once again brings to every woman and man full face the way in which women who say "no!" are not listened to and at times silenced permanently. in short, we are seen if not treated as property that can be used or discarded by violent whim.
i am used to going through my days on low level alert--scanning my surroundings because being a professor at an elite institution does not trump my blackness or my femaleness or my sexual orientation. but my alert mechanism has dialed itself up a notch or two. and i am not alone on this campus in this regard. secretaries and administrative assistants (who are overwhelmingly women) across the campus are having hushed and not so hushed conversations about their safety. some are afraid because they work in offices where the traffic patterns are episodic and the building can be relatively quiet for long stretches. there are counseling services available to all of us and some are using them. but it will take time for the trauma to subside for many of us and for us to be able to go on. but it's doubtful we will forget.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
running versus governing
I have been thinking a good bit about the difference between running a campaign for office and governing once in office. The two do not automatically mesh and each takes its own particular set of skills as far as I've been able to determine. You may be thinking I am referring to the challenges Barack Obama faces these days--but current politicians are part of a much longer troublesome dilemma for me.
For as long as I have been able to decipher politics (some time in the 70s), I've noticed how many folks run for office on one set of principles and then when office, another set of principles show up and tries to run things. It's not quite Jekyll and Hyde, but it is eerily close. What has caused me to be circumspect about politicians is that the set of values surrounding governing that seem to predominate often has the word "re-election" ranging around in the background like a demanding, moaning sylph. I'm not convinced that this state of affairs is what the founding fathers (and silent mothers) had in mind when crafting our governmental structures. They assumed, I think, several things that are lacking today: an educated and alert citizenship, valuing genuine debate over rhetoric, carefully considering options (viable or not), and a willingness to subsume personal agendas for the greater good. Yes, some of this sounds like utopian pipe dreams, but this is exactly my point. These are values that are meant to draw us out of complacency and self interest. When we fail to strive for them, we begin to sound the death knells for democracy.
Those spouting the cheery hokum that we are living in a post-racial America have gun-toting friends that think the right to bear arms means being able to intimidate a sitting president (now exactly which other president did the secret service and police allow this to happen?) and these folks are being cheer-led by fearmongerers. Meanwhile, politicians use toteboards for votes to decide pressing national issues such as health care reform, the economy, education, energy, and international relations. Ultimately, we need to look at the person in the mirror. We are the ones who elect these folks and we are the ones who must hold them accountable. We must begin to demand better from our elected officials by educating ourselves about the dynamics of the issues that are effecting us--not by relying on the talking points developed by special interest groups that conveniently reflect narrow agendas being shopped as the common good or the rely on draw polls taken that seem to talk to a rather select group of folks rather than look long and large into the general population.
Perhaps this is where our religious communities can be helpful. They can become, where they are not, the go to place to get solid information and informed debate that help us get the education we need rather than rely on bloviated rhetoric and arrogant self righteous pronouncements that are all heat but no fire. It is hard work to craft such spaces, but we must. This is one of the ways we yoke citizenship and faith to maintain and grow a robust democracy.
For as long as I have been able to decipher politics (some time in the 70s), I've noticed how many folks run for office on one set of principles and then when office, another set of principles show up and tries to run things. It's not quite Jekyll and Hyde, but it is eerily close. What has caused me to be circumspect about politicians is that the set of values surrounding governing that seem to predominate often has the word "re-election" ranging around in the background like a demanding, moaning sylph. I'm not convinced that this state of affairs is what the founding fathers (and silent mothers) had in mind when crafting our governmental structures. They assumed, I think, several things that are lacking today: an educated and alert citizenship, valuing genuine debate over rhetoric, carefully considering options (viable or not), and a willingness to subsume personal agendas for the greater good. Yes, some of this sounds like utopian pipe dreams, but this is exactly my point. These are values that are meant to draw us out of complacency and self interest. When we fail to strive for them, we begin to sound the death knells for democracy.
Those spouting the cheery hokum that we are living in a post-racial America have gun-toting friends that think the right to bear arms means being able to intimidate a sitting president (now exactly which other president did the secret service and police allow this to happen?) and these folks are being cheer-led by fearmongerers. Meanwhile, politicians use toteboards for votes to decide pressing national issues such as health care reform, the economy, education, energy, and international relations. Ultimately, we need to look at the person in the mirror. We are the ones who elect these folks and we are the ones who must hold them accountable. We must begin to demand better from our elected officials by educating ourselves about the dynamics of the issues that are effecting us--not by relying on the talking points developed by special interest groups that conveniently reflect narrow agendas being shopped as the common good or the rely on draw polls taken that seem to talk to a rather select group of folks rather than look long and large into the general population.
Perhaps this is where our religious communities can be helpful. They can become, where they are not, the go to place to get solid information and informed debate that help us get the education we need rather than rely on bloviated rhetoric and arrogant self righteous pronouncements that are all heat but no fire. It is hard work to craft such spaces, but we must. This is one of the ways we yoke citizenship and faith to maintain and grow a robust democracy.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
health care "debate"
The health care debate rages and for many of us who watched the previous one under the Clinton administration, there are eerie and deadly similarities. Once again, special interest groups who have a stake in keeping an often pathetic health care system in the United States underweight and underfed are using fear, innuendo, and outright lies to derail any reform. Frankly, I am bitterly disappointed that the Obama administration has taken the single payer option off the table in the name of political expediency. However there may be enough there remaining that if we had a responsible debate about it, we just might craft something that decreases the rolls of those who have limited or no access to quality health care and those trying to find or maintain their health on inadequate care.
The single payer system features a centralized payment for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers and facilities. Some argue that is a way deliver near-universal or universal health care at a controllable cost. The administrator of the fund could be the government but it could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law. The outcry against this tends to be that it is socialist (still an effective fright word) and point to the flaws in health care delivery in Britian, Canada, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and other countries who have some version of single payer plans as "proof" that the United States should never adopt a single payer system.
Last week, I watched mainstream news reports about the mobile clinic has been organized by Remote Area Medical (RMA) in Inglewood, CA. RMA provides free medical, vision, and dental care for uninsured, underinsured, unemployed, under-employed persons in remote areas around the world. Although they traditionally have focused on the rural poor, they worked in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The LA clinic is running from August 11-18 as thousands are coming to receive free medical care that they would not have received otherwise. Folks had their blood pressure checked, eye tests, mammograms, immunizations for children, dental care, acupuncture, and saw kidney specialists. What more "proof" do we need that what we have now in the U.S. is highly suspect and not representative of a democracy.
Our health care system is flawed and far too many of us are among the uninsured (roughly 46 million) and the numbers have continued to rise since 2000. We must stop wasting time on townhall meetings were the talking points of those shouting the loudest against reform were issued by those who have the greatest interest in stopping reform. We can be and must be better than this as a nation and begin to embrace the notion of "we the people" once again rather than "me and mine."
The single payer system features a centralized payment for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers and facilities. Some argue that is a way deliver near-universal or universal health care at a controllable cost. The administrator of the fund could be the government but it could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law. The outcry against this tends to be that it is socialist (still an effective fright word) and point to the flaws in health care delivery in Britian, Canada, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and other countries who have some version of single payer plans as "proof" that the United States should never adopt a single payer system.
Last week, I watched mainstream news reports about the mobile clinic has been organized by Remote Area Medical (RMA) in Inglewood, CA. RMA provides free medical, vision, and dental care for uninsured, underinsured, unemployed, under-employed persons in remote areas around the world. Although they traditionally have focused on the rural poor, they worked in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The LA clinic is running from August 11-18 as thousands are coming to receive free medical care that they would not have received otherwise. Folks had their blood pressure checked, eye tests, mammograms, immunizations for children, dental care, acupuncture, and saw kidney specialists. What more "proof" do we need that what we have now in the U.S. is highly suspect and not representative of a democracy.
Our health care system is flawed and far too many of us are among the uninsured (roughly 46 million) and the numbers have continued to rise since 2000. We must stop wasting time on townhall meetings were the talking points of those shouting the loudest against reform were issued by those who have the greatest interest in stopping reform. We can be and must be better than this as a nation and begin to embrace the notion of "we the people" once again rather than "me and mine."
Friday, August 7, 2009
a sotomayor celebration and a few riffs
In a country that prides itself on being a melting pot, the city on the hill, the land of the free and the home of the brave--a working democracy--it is both worth celebrating and a sobering moment that the Senate has confirmed our first Latinoa for the Supreme Court. On one side, the democrats focused on her biography of rising from Puerto Rican single mother parent beginnings to successful academic careers at two Ivy League institutions (yes, Yale is making a very big deal of this), her experience as a proscecutor and corporate lawyer, and 17 years as a district and appeals court judge. On the other, the major of republican senators described her as a judicial activists and criticized several speeches she made about foreign law and judicial diversity ("wise Latina judge") and her votes on cases involving Second Amendment rights, property rights, and a racial discrimination claim brought by White firefighters here in New Haven.
As I have followed this debate, it has struck me how ironic it is that liberal-leaning judges are labeled "activist" and conservative-leaning judges are labeled "fair." These are labels that are, to my mind, ridiculous. The law has always been a complex terrain for Black folk in the United States as well as other darker skinned peoples. Although a common strategy in Black political, social, and moral thought has been to appeal to the founding documents of this nation--the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Consitution--in an attempt to call this nation to live out it ideals of justice and liberty for all; far too many daily interactions with the law are problematic if not deadly and we experience a two steps forward, one step back reality when it comes to our civil rights in the legal arena.
I have found some of the rulings from all levels of the judiary that come from many "fair" conservative judges to be biased and siding with the tradition of White supremacy, heterosexism, and class elitism that is also a part of the founding history and enduring practices of this country. It would seem from this brief litmus test, that "fair" to one person or group who feels its interests and perspectives have been protected and legitimized can be deadly to those who still feel as though they are climbing the high side of misery. Those of you who are legal scholars can do a much better job than I can in describing this history as the work of critical race theory has shown.
For my part, I celebrate Judge Sotomayor's judicial record, her honesty about the ways in which all judges should be aware that their personal narratives are a part of what they must contend with and try not to let overwhelm judicial prudence, and her pride in and respect for her family (which one of us could not resonate with having your mama there with you at your confirmation hearings?). I wish her well as being "the first" is never easy although it can be exhilirating and important as we continue our shuffle toward a more perfect union and continue to cling to the hope that we can create a genuine democracy...the Lord willing and the creek don't rise.
As I have followed this debate, it has struck me how ironic it is that liberal-leaning judges are labeled "activist" and conservative-leaning judges are labeled "fair." These are labels that are, to my mind, ridiculous. The law has always been a complex terrain for Black folk in the United States as well as other darker skinned peoples. Although a common strategy in Black political, social, and moral thought has been to appeal to the founding documents of this nation--the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Consitution--in an attempt to call this nation to live out it ideals of justice and liberty for all; far too many daily interactions with the law are problematic if not deadly and we experience a two steps forward, one step back reality when it comes to our civil rights in the legal arena.
I have found some of the rulings from all levels of the judiary that come from many "fair" conservative judges to be biased and siding with the tradition of White supremacy, heterosexism, and class elitism that is also a part of the founding history and enduring practices of this country. It would seem from this brief litmus test, that "fair" to one person or group who feels its interests and perspectives have been protected and legitimized can be deadly to those who still feel as though they are climbing the high side of misery. Those of you who are legal scholars can do a much better job than I can in describing this history as the work of critical race theory has shown.
For my part, I celebrate Judge Sotomayor's judicial record, her honesty about the ways in which all judges should be aware that their personal narratives are a part of what they must contend with and try not to let overwhelm judicial prudence, and her pride in and respect for her family (which one of us could not resonate with having your mama there with you at your confirmation hearings?). I wish her well as being "the first" is never easy although it can be exhilirating and important as we continue our shuffle toward a more perfect union and continue to cling to the hope that we can create a genuine democracy...the Lord willing and the creek don't rise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
