10.31.08
it’s so sad that this is not surprising
Palo Alto Police Chief instructs officers to question African-Americans and “find out who they are”:
While the chief defends her instructions (at least in this news report, she says they were misinterpreted here) as being due to a lack of other descriptives besides race, it is hard to imagine that had the only description of the suspects been that they were white, similar instructions would have been given.
10.29.08
do locs = black?
So there is an interesting case, as pointed out by Brunsli, where a lawyer struck a juror during the jury selection phase of a trial because his locs made the lawyer “uneasy.” The review process of this decision decided that citing uneasiness due to locs was more about uneasiness due to race, which is not allowed. So, on the surface, this sounds good – we don’t want people excluded due to race – but underneath, there is definitely an assumption that locs=black. How fair is this?
Some say it’s not accurate. First, people of all races can, in theory, get dreadlocks. And I’ve seen them more and more on white people than I personally would care to see. Why? Because for me, getting locs was freeing for me, shedding a white racist standard of beauty. When whites then start to appropriate this look, it bothers me. Why can’t I have something that is beautiful without those that I was trying to break away from also taking it and making it theirs? Some say it’s also not accurate because many associate dreads with Rastafari, which is essentially a religion. But the religion also popularly associated with black Jamaicans (Marley – “chase those crazy baldheads out of town…”).
What I was most struck by are some of the comments on the blog:
(a) I’ve never met someone with dreds that wasn’t Rastafari (though some of the people in college were pretty weakly religious), so this is basically a suspect classification either by race or religion; (b) while anyone may choose to wear dreds, the dissent misses the meaning of the tremendous amount of dedication it takes to cultivate that hairstyle, and the implication that no one who didn’t ascribe to a specific ideology of Rastafari would do it.
It does take a lot of dedication, but I’m am not Jamaican, and am not Rastafari. And 90% of the people I know with locs are neither Jamaican nor Rastafari, but all that I know are black (or identify as half-black or some part black). I do think there may be a common ideology shared by those with locs, but it’s not all Rastafari. For me, and many of my friends, it is about Black being Beautiful, a symbol of how much I love being Black without trying to look White.
I suppose the previous commenter would write it off as some latent racism, but I could certainly accept as race-neutral the decision to strike a dreadlocked juror (and I have a law degree). How about a narcissistic obsession with one’s appearance? Or as an indication that the person is a user of illegal drugs?
I can’t tell if this person is being serious. If I have locs, I am narcissitic? Well, perhaps, since I’ve been made to feel by the mainstream holders of the standard of beauty that my hair as it is is ugly and wrong, I do have a bit of a complex about it. But a user of illegal drugs? All I can say is some are, and some aren’t, some were (without locs) and some no longer are (with locs).
In a more rational world the courts would realize that just because dreds are steeped in black culture, does not mean it’s racist to remove a dreds-sporter. Lots of cultural factors are “ingrained” in all sorts of people which might tend to make them bad jurors for your case. I’ve never met a dreds-wearer who was not decidedly liberal on certain views, including the police, and pot-smoking in general.
I’m liberal, and I know it. And since I’ve decided that I’m probably not going to law school anymore (which is a post in and of itself, and not for tonight), I’ll admit that I’ve smoked a bit of the ganja in my youth. Should it be legal? I don’t know. But I personally don’t smoke anymore because, as a parent, I always want to be right in the here, and besides, my post-pregnancy body cannot take the munchies the way it did in the past.
The deep dark stinky place where the South Carolina majority court seems to be keeping their heads smells no better than many of the uber liberal American hippies who wear dread locks.
I promise I don’t stink.
And then the logic just gets flawed:
If we can say that striking a juror for having a hairstyle mostly worn by blacks is racist then couldn’t we say that striking a juror because he uses drug, or has been to jail is also racist by the same logic?
Hmm. The majority of people with locs are black. But the majority of people in jail are not black. And the majority of drug users (#11) are not black. How, then, are these the same thing?
I point these things out, because, like I told my husband, these people exist out there. Walking the streets, hiring and firing folks, teaching our kids…
congrats to the place called home
CONGRATS TO THE PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES, 2008 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!!!! 25 years since we’ve had a championship in the city….this will probably only pale to (dare I say it) an Obama win on Tuesday. This is shaping up to be the best week EVER.
But I still wish I was home
10.22.08
voting NO on Prop 8
There are not many issues I feel the need to speak about, as there are so many things to be for and against, and I just feel like being for or against everything kind of waters down your passion for any one of them. But one issue I’ve always felt strongly about is legalized discrimination in any form, especially legal discrimination that is really about religious beliefs.
Prop 8 changes the CA state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, effectively eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. I am not a legal scholar, but I can read and have an opinion, so here it is.
My first issue is the obvious discrimination. Section 1 of the 14th amendment, otherwise known as the Equal Protection Clause, states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The clause explicitly protects citizens from violations of the US Constitution not only from the federal government, but from state governments as well. So if we can establish that a change to the CA state constitution violates a Constitutional protection (like, equal protection), then the proposition is unconstitutional.
Now, supporters of Prop 8 state:
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships.
But, in regards to teaching same-sex marriage in schools:
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
So Proposition 8 does not think that same-sex marriage is the same as “traditional” marriage – let’s not kid ourselves in thinking that this amendment would preserve the equality of DPs and marriage. While the current rights accorded to domestic partnerships will not be changed as a result of the amendment, domestic partnerships are not marriage nor do they have the same rights as marriage; if they were, they would be called marriage. This is not simply an issue of semantics – Brown vs. Board made clear that the harm of “separate but equal” was not just about equal facilities or equal money, but even if they were truly equal among a number of factors, the Brown decision said “separate facilities are inherently unequal.” Why? Because of the reason behind the separation.
The psychological harm to Black children in causing them to believe themselves inferior when having separate facilities did not live up to the equal protection clause. Gay partnerships, in having a separate name, will forever be inferior to “traditional” marriage. By passing a constitutional amendment, DPs are lesser unions. Defining a term in the constitution is not just saying what is, it is also saying what isn’t. So please don’t say, “Well, we aren’t taking any rights away from anyone.” Because you’re forgetting the right to be seen as an equal member of society.
My second issue is this messing with the constitution by way of popular vote. In the equal protection clause, the basic message is this – if the US Constitution prohibits it, neither the state nor the “people” can do it. In my opinion, Cali really goes too far on this initiative, “everybody has a right to vote on everything because this is a democracy.” To me, this is exactly why the Constitution contains only basic rights, and we live in a republic rather than a democracy – the “people,” even if a simple majority, should never have the right to take away basic rights awarded to us in the Constitution. Quite frankly, if CA passes this prop, I would hope that there would be a case taken to SCOTUS to challenge the constitutionality of even allowing such a proposition to be decided among the people. For the “people” are a fickle bunch, and I don’t want my basic rights to be decided by a majority of whoever decided to turn out and vote that day – that is really crazy.
My third issue is a religious one, and it basically comes down to that I don’t think the government should be deciding questions of whether religious beliefs are right or wrong or whether a lack of religious beliefs are right or wrong. If we have the right to be atheist or agnostic, then the government should not force upon me a definition that essentially is about confirming a religious idea more than anything else. For why is same-sex marriage not the same as traditional marriage? – Because God said so. Biological concerns are moot with modern technology, for if the issue is about things not being “natural”, then outlaw IVF – if a woman can’t get pregnant the “old-fashioned” way, then she shouldn’t get pregnant at all. Allowing more people to get married does nothing to reduce the significance of my marriage in practical terms. Remove issues of God from this issue, and it’s discrimination.
Vote no on Prop 8.
10.17.08
joe the racist
Mr. Wurzelbacher told Ms. Couric that his encounter with Mr. Obama was a matter of impulse.
“Neighbors were outside asking him questions, and I didn’t think they were asking him tough enough questions,” he said.He went on, “You know, I’ve always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them and get them to answer a question,” he said, “for once instead of tap dancing around it, and unfortunately I asked the question, but I still got a tap dance.”
He added, “Almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr.”
As a commenter says – “Do the Republicans vet anybody???”
10.16.08
i took the challenge
Dr. Huginkiss of the GBOC posted a challenge to find any piece of evidence – no matter how shaky – to support special crackdowns on sex offenders on Halloween. The winner gets a jumbo bag of candy and i LOVE candy. I was also intrigued to see if I could find anything, especially as I have beef with CJ policies that actually cost money but have not been shown to reduce crime , and especially when such policies strike me as being discriminating and I hate discrimination.
So I did a little digging, and – surprise, surprise – I found nothing. Well, not nothing, but definitely not any evidence. What I did find is that among some of the prohibitions is even wearing a costume, presumably in the privacy of one’s own home, and many policy makers are willing to ADMIT that the policies are not based on actual increases in sexual predator crimes on Halloween, but rather as a response to a perceived “uptick” in child abduction cases (yes, child abduction, which could or could not be sexual predator related.) Here’s a few examples:
Westchester County, NY (2005) :The Halloween initiative does not come in response to a spike in molestations or abductions on the holiday, however. “We have never had an incident on Halloween night,” Hochman said. But highly publicized cases of brutal child abductions in recent years have heightened citizen activism and put pressure on local authorities to monitor sex offenders more closely.
Spokane, WA (2007): “Here we’re creating a new police action squad to go out and address a problem that has never manifested itself in the community,” Gresback told the newspaper. He said in 20 years he’d never run across a case of a sex offender attacking a child on Halloween.
But states and communities don’t want to take any chances.
These laws are also being lauded as “protection” for the offenders themselves:
Baltimore (2008): “By making a commitment to refrain from participating in Halloween activities, you will enable the children and parents in your neighborhood to enjoy the holiday without undue anxiety,” said the letter signed by Patrick McGee, Director of the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation. “In addition, you will also protect yourself from misunderstandings and the allegations that may arise from them.”
And apparently not all are aware of the need for a comparison group when deciding that the policies bring good “results” (again Baltimore):
“We’ve had very good results,” Wonda Adams, said a supervisor at the Parole and Probation Division and coordinator of the Halloween watch program.
“Our goal is public safety, and in keeping with that we need to make sure that the individuals under our supervision are provided with the enhanced supervision that we’re committed to.”
How does she know that she is getting good results – i.e. reduced crime – if there is no evidence that a crime would have been committed in absence of the law?
Thanks for pointing this out, Dr. H! We should ALL be concerned about how our tax dollars are being spent on policies that are more about fear than about sensible policies.
mindfulness
I’m taking a mindfulness meditation class as part of my treatment. When I arrived, I instantly felt different – as usual, the only black face in the crowd but also considerably younger than many of the people in the room. I was further singled out because they wouldn’t give me a book and CD that comes with the class because, as a student, I registered for free (course credit) while the rest of the room paid $299 for the 8-week course and they were running out of books.
The class started quite slow, and as someone who is fighting fatigue, I was really annoyed. The teacher is a dentist by training but has been teaching this class for 12+ years and has a pretty good reputation. He started saying a lot of stuff I already know having studied yoga for the past three years, like the difference between pain (physical experience) and suffering (wanting thigs to be any other way than they are), the ability of the mind to take a step back from itself and observe what’s going on in it, the automatic piloting that we do each day to the detriment of truly appreciating what we have now, in the moment. My first reaction was to be like, “yes, yes, I know this already!” and nod my head like those annying people in classes that look and act like they know everything so you wonder why they are there, but then something inside told me to stop being such a jerk and become more open because while I’m thinking I know everything than why am I sitting in this class?
So I became more open. And as soon as I made that resolve, the class became more interesting. We started going around introducing ourselves and telling our story of why we were there. We proceeded using a “popcorn” method, where one person volunteered to start, and then, if something that person says resonates with you, you “pop” and tell your story, going around and around until everyone had spoken. If you know me, you probably would guess that I volunteered to go first because I’m not a shy person and I like to talk, but someone beat me to the punch and started to talk about the issues they were having and that they had to kids and then POP! My turn. I told them that I was a mother to two small kids and a full-time grad student and that I have this chronic pain disease and that I really wanted to be a better parent. Everyone went around, with some version of the same issues – anxiety, stress, insomnia, chronic pain, general unhappiness.
The poem I posted yesterday came after the intros, and while I’d never heard it before, I totally understood what it was saying. Habits are real; we all have them. But some of our habits are making us sick and unhappy. In the first chapter, you fail to even recognize the habit, and when bad things happen, you’re confused and wonder, “why did that happen to me?” You don’t take responsbility for the habit cause yoou didn’t even know it was there. In the seonc chapter, you notice the habit, but you ignore it, and then you continue to do as you always have, blaming everyone but you when the bad things happen.
The third chapter, which is where I am on some things, but further back and further forward on others, is when you recognize the habit, but don’t know how to change what you are doing. The bad consequence occurs, but you take responsibility and work like hell to change the circumstances. Something has clicked. The fourth chapter, you are going down the same road, but you remember the habit, and actively change it, avoiding the bad consequence. By the fifth chapter, you’re not even going down that road anymore, creating a new reality for your life. Now of course, this happens with every habit, of which there are millions, so that on the next road maybe there’s a boulder, or another pothole. But the great thing is that now your mind is open to recognize the habits, and perhaps you progress through the chapters faster than you did the first time.
We ended the class actually doing a mindfull exercise called beginner’s mind. We held two raisins and inspected them using all ofour senses. First we focused on the intricacies of the first raisin, its divets and glossy areas, tiny specks of sugar that you’ve never really seen before. Next we shifted the focus to how the raisin felt between our fingers. Then we lifted the raisin to our nose, smelling it’s small, distinctive smell. Then we raised it to our ears, and listened as we rolled it between our fingers. We then placed the raisin between our lips, and noticed how that felt as opposed to our fingers. Finally, we let it fall into our mouths, exploring it with our tongue and then pressed by our teeth, a little explosion of flavor in our mouth and down our throats. We then repeated the exercise with the second raisin, approaching it with our beginner’s mind, as if we’d never seen, felt, smelle, heard or tasted this object before.
We left with an assignment to follow a meditation CD for 5 days in the next seven. I know better than to commit to all that I can handle instead of what is actually doable, so I made a personal commitment to 15 minutes each night before bed this week. Maybe next week I will up it, maybe lower it. More than anything I am making a commitment to stay more in the moment.
10.14.08
i’m in chapter three
AUTOBIOGRAPHY IN FIVE SHORT CHAPTERS
by Portia Nelson
I
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk
I fall in.
I am lost … I am helpless.
It isn’t my fault.
It takes me forever to find a way out.
II
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I pretend I don’t see it.
I fall in again.
I can’t believe I am in the same place
but, it isn’t my fault.
It still takes a long time to get out.
III
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I see it is there.
I still fall in … it’s a habit.
my eyes are open
I know where I am.
It is my fault.
I get out immediately.
IV
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I walk around it.
V
I walk down another street.