Not Black, just black. January 27, 2008
Posted by Lindsay in Criticism, History, Media, News, Philosophy, Politics, Race.add a comment
Obama’s South Carolina win and acceptance speech convincingly rebuked the “black candidate” perception that he has. But when listening to the speech, we must keep in mind how ridiculous the debate has become. The false dichotomy of “the black candidate versus the candidate who happens to be black” is merely a euphemism for the ignorant ideas they connote, that is, “candidate influenced by and committed to the ‘negative’ aspects of black culture versus the candidate who is black but is more influenced by white culture.” Depending on your point of view, what exactly those elements of black culture that are negative differ.
The slope of humanity. November 1, 2007
Posted by Lindsay in Commentary, Criticism, Literature, Philosophy, Writing.3 comments
For a long time, I’ve felt it was not just the mark of the greatest literature, but a responsibility of literature, to expand the realm of what human beings consider part of the human condition. That is, to discover the concepts and ideas that make people human, especially if those concepts have not been a theme in prior canonical works. This article from Slate confirms several of my worries about the role of the members of the literary community that guard at the gates — that is, of course, the publishers.
In “The Invisible Lesbian,” Sarah Schulman, a well-reviewed novelist within the gay and lesbian literary community, discusses the difficulties she has had to face in getting her latest novel, The Child, published:
The Child is about a romantic, sexual relationship between 15-year-old Stew and 40-year-old David. Many editors’ letters explicitly pointed to this relationship as the reason for rejection. What troubled the editors was my point of view. I did not come out “against” the relationship. Instead, I was, as one blurber ultimately put it, “objective.”
Reign. October 11, 2007
Posted by Lindsay in Constitution, Criticism, Humor, Media, News, Politics.add a comment
Recently, I’ve been concerned about the possibility of questionable methods of maintaining power in Pakistan and Russia being repeated by the Bush administration. After all, if Cheney can exist in a phantom 2.5th branch of government between the executive and legislative, he might manage to find a rift in the space-time fabric large enough for him to remain in power past the end of the universe itself. Of course, if Bush wants to stay in power, he’ll use a much blunter method, like creating an office of Burger King or something like that.
Pakistan’s leader, Pervez Musharraf, the Chief of Army Staff who took power in a coup, promised he would return the nation to civilian rule if re-elected for president, by turning over the army chief post to a crony. Musharraf has been fighting judges for months, trying to prevent elections from being held, but in the end, he managed to win with 98% of the vote. Similarly, Vladimir Putin has just appointed Viktor Zubkov, who has “no visible political ambitions” to the post of the Prime Minister of Russia, and the two will likely switch places at the end of Putin’s presidential term. But here in the U.S., if a Republican candidate were to somehow win in November 2008, it wouldn’t be very smart of them to put anyone from the Bush administration in their Cabinet. Also, Bush doesn’t have the audacity to suddenly raise the terror alert level in January 2009 so that he can institute martial law and remain in power that way. Although, if he did, I can’t see Pelosi and Reid putting up a serious resistance to it.
Taxation without representation. September 4, 2007
Posted by Lindsay in Constitution, Criticism, History, Media, Violence.1 comment so far
In an op-ed published in The Washington Post, the mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, and District Attorney General Linda Singer, summarizing their arguments for why the city should be able to ban handguns in Washington, D.C. Such a ban has been in place since 1976, until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned it earlier this year on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. This was a mistake. Although Republicans allowed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004, there are a multitude of similar laws at the state level around the country. Clearly, the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” does not have any stipulations about what kinds of arms the people can keep. The second amendment itself places no upper or lower limit on what kinds of arms the people have a right to wield, nor does it prohibit the states from imposing such limits. In this light, the city of Washington has every right to maintain its ban of handguns, which are uniquely dangerous because of their ability to be concealed easily, and the massive body count they have allowed criminals to almost effortlessly amass.
Naturally, the last line of defense for the pro-gun crowd on this case will be whether or not D.C. has the full rights of a state. Unfortunately, home rule in the District of Columbia has its boundaries. Congress still has the right to impose or repeal any law it so chooses regarding the District of Columbia. However, in this case, it has, for the most part, remained silent, to the citizens’ benefit.
For all of the bad press the city of Washington gets — whether its crime or our school system — we can at least say that we’ve evolved enough to the point where we can protest “taxation without representation” just as our forefathers did without giving both ourselves and criminals the deadly means to reenact the revolutionary script.
The third war. August 28, 2007
Posted by Lindsay in Criticism, Hyperreality, Media, Soldiers, War.add a comment
Christopher Hitchens is admirable for his refusal to cater to extremes of moral relativism by tolerating archaic, reprehensible practices, even if he never does quite manage to avoid sounding bombastic and narrow-minded when he does it. In general, I agree with him that religion is one of the most harmful systems to ever permeate civilization, even though I probably respect its positive attributes for people who feel they need it in their lives a little more than he does. But he is perhaps the only remaining member of the intelligentsia who manages to defend the Iraq War while maintaining his dignity. He usually argues compellingly, but ultimately, his interpretations of the evidence he finds are misconceptions.
In his latest valiant attempt, he says that based on the multitude of fronts we are fighting, the Iraq War is actually three wars, and that the United States is winning two of them. “There are currently at least three wars, along with several subconflicts, being fought on Iraqi soil. The first, tragically, is the battle for mastery between Sunni and Shiite. The second is the campaign to isolate and defeat al-Qaida in Mesopotamia. The third is the struggle of Iraq’s Kurdish minority to defend and consolidate its regional government in the north,” says Hitch.
It’s an intriguing concept, but not quite new, because the third war — the one we’re losing, according to Hitch — is actually the “battle” with the Maliki government, and its failure to step up to take over the reins of controlling its own country. Hitch rightly condemns the Maliki government for relying too heavily on the presence of coalition troops and not working seriously enough for fair distribution of political influence in local and national government among the Kurdish, Shia, Sunni demographics, saying: “Maliki himself has recently attacked the coalition forces for carrying out raids in Shiite districts of Baghdad. Perhaps [Maliki] ought to be told that he is not being lent our armed forces for the purpose of installing Shiite power.”
The scratched lens of history: A closer look at the words of John Lennon August 24, 2007
Posted by Lindsay in Criticism, Feminism, History, Hyperreality, Media, Music, Race, Writing.1 comment so far
It’s always interesting to find what is and isn’t in the common consciousness of United States society when we talk of our beloved national figures (even if they are from the United Kingdom). I still remember watching “Come Together: A Night for John Lennon’s Words and Music,” that concert held in October 2001 at Radio City Music Hall. In all likelihood, it was planned several months before, and in light of the September 11 attacks, the producers apparently decided to jam a new theme into all the speeches that prefaced the performances–Lennon’s love of New York. The assertion of a connection between John Lennon and New York City apparently hinges on a classic black-and-white photo that tends to adorn the walls of the most pretentious college students’ dorms, projected on the walls behind Yoko Ono’s beaming, self-assured face. At that show, which supposedly celebrated the message of John Lennon’s music, and his connection to New York City, songs from his poorly received album, Some Time In New York City, were conveniently left off the set list. Of course, at first glance, the song entitled “New York City” might be an obvious choice for a concert about New York City, but upon inspection, the lyrics don’t quite capture the sentimental, romanticized vision of New York City that post-9/11 New Yorkers thought they so desparately needed…
Well we did the Staten Island Ferry
Making movies for the telly
Played the Fillmore and Apollo for freedom
Tried to shake our image
Just a cycling through the Village
But found that we had left it back in London
Well nobody came to bug us
Hustle us or shove us
So we decided to make it our home
If the Man wants to shove us out
We gonna jump and shout
The Statue of Liberty said, “Come!”
What’s this? Is John Lennon suggesting that the practices of the powers that be don’t live up to the promise of the United States’s ideals? But how could this be? We New Yorkers and apparently, no other city in the United States, were victimized by a bunch of cowardly towel-heads who tried to suggest that capitalism, not freedom, is the prominent theme of American life, and here comes some dead British guy who’s songs we used to make out to in our parents’ bedrooms who refuses to support our misguided attempt at injecting grandiosity into his lyrics!
The cognitive dissonance of the Iowa Caucus. January 3, 2008
Posted by Lindsay in Comedy, Commentary, Criticism, Media, News, Politics.add a comment
Here is a handy guide to the Iowa Caucus process. Notice how much more convoluted the process is for the Democratic Party is than it is for the Republicans. Defenders have likened it to instant run-off voting, but this is anything but instant. For it to be effective, there should be a simple, secret ballot system in which a voter may mark his or her candidates in numerical order in the event that their first choices do not get the required fifteen percent of the electorate to move on to the next step. This is why Kucinich decided to give a recommendation as a second-choice for voters caucusing for him–in his case, Obama. At least he’s making an effort to avoid the “Nader effect.”
But notice the lower-right hand corner. Although the Iowa Caucus tends to predict the party nominee, those nominees rarely win the general election. So it seems to me that if the Democrats want to choose the most “electable” candidate, they need to go with anyone but the winner of the Iowa Caucus. That’s kind of how they got their beloved Bill Clinton.
For a party that claims to be about change and progress, the Iowa Democrats sure pick some ridiculous traditions to uphold.