"Two in 10 Democratic voters in Kentucky said race was a factor in their choice, and they overwhelmingly voted for Mrs. Clinton."
Read that again.
Link at the bottom for NYTimes article.
So we have evidence that close to 20% of Democratic voters in Kentucky are admitted racists. Admitted racists. And this is the Democratic party, the supposedly more liberal and progressive party. Let's assume for a second that KY Democrats are twice as accepting as Republicans (maybe that's not fair to Republicans but it's a round number). So we can then assume that 30% of Kentuckians are openly racist. But wait, there's more. About 8% of Kentucky's population is black, and can be safely assumed not to have voted for Clinton based solely on her race. Remove them, and we're talking about roughly one-third of Kentucky being openly racist. Surely there are enough racists there who are simply too shy or--one would hope, ashamed--to actually admit it to a reporter, so that probably half of the state is racist. Half the state is over 2 million people.
I grew up in Eastern Ohio in an area that fringed Appalachia and therefore had as much in common with Kentucky and West Virginia as it did with the rest of Ohio. My mother grew up in Northern Kentucky and met my father at a small college in Ohio near the Kentucky border. We used to travel to visit my grandparents in Wurtland, KY about once a year until I went to college. And still the above math shocks and disgusts me.
I don't have the article handy, but my memory tells me the percentages for West Virginia were strikingly similar. We are not dealing with an isolated phenomenon, or a glitch in the polling.
When I was younger I used to think the issue of racism was overblown, that in the 1990s it was just not as relevant as it used to be. I thought we as a nation had been through it all and had successfully turned a corner. Now I don't know. We've obviously turned some kind of a corner, but we just as obviously have further to go. Could it be that racism has breathed new life and is spreading? Have we in our haste to pat ourselves on the back for doing a good job in extending equal rights slacked off and therefore left the smoldering pit of racism too much room to sit and fester? Have we allowed it to occupy too large a corner of the demographic so that to others it might still appear legitimate?
Whatever it is, the current state of affairs in this country just isn't acceptable.
I guess this is why I try not to read too much political election news, because the results invariably anger/upset/disappoint/confuse me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/21cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
1. "God is great, you know. God is great. That's I been telling them."
"Yeah, every day, that's what they say. God is great."
"Uh-huh, God is great, every day."
-The entirety of the words heard just now during a one-floor ride on the freight elevator here at 90 Park Ave, exchanged between the elevator operator and a postal employee doing his morning rounds.
You just can't get away from it.
2. This morning on the elevator TV the news page displayed three bullet-point items. First one: "Sen Kennedy still in hospital recovering from seizure." Second one: "China plans three minutes of mourning today." The third one was of course superfluous.
3. Sara wanted me to watch "Angels in America" with her and so I did. It's six hours long, so my doing so does represent some kind of a commitment (though I did once read an 1100-page book at Jocelyn's behest, so this sort emasculation is not without precedent).
Hopefully this is not a sign of ignorance, but I was a little distracted by how gay it was early on. As it progressed, it was perfectly natural, but at the beginning it just seemed like too much. Of course I didn't know that homosexuality was the central theme, so it only made sense that nearly every character was either openly or closeted gay. Nonetheless, it took an hour or more to get used to it (as I am a fan of realism in movies).
It's a well-done movie (can you call it a film if it's made specifically for TV, in this case HBO?) based on a play that forced me to actively wonder how it might have been staged and whether or not the transformation to screen was effective. In the end I decided yes it was good but not great in this regard. The aspect that was spectacular was the acting, but then I guess it's to be expected when Al Pacino and Meryl Streep play large roles. The former is perfect for his part as he gets to do his Pacino intensity thing but he was also effectively kept in check unlike many of his more recent performances where he's just a silly representation of a charater as opposed to simply a character. I particularly enjoyed his speech patterns and general delivery (I think I might be becoming a speech/delivery fetishist regarding movies; this is also one of the main reasons I loved my boy Javier Bardem so much). Streep is also pretty much classic Streep: calm and not always the center of attention but pretty much always the best person on screen and the reason every scene she's in works so well. In this as in many of her roles, she's somewhat underappreciated unless you're looking for her.
The real reason the acting was so amazing though was not the top two names but all the rest. Everyone does very well. It's such a comprehensive display of good acting that I'm forced to give the director and the writer some credit for it. In fact, the only actor I didn't like a lot was Mary-Louis Parker, whom I think a lot of people liked. Maybe the guy who played her husband was just above-average as well, but that would be nit-picking.
Jeffrey Wright in his two roles was awesome. He played a gay queen in the most substantive one and was never ever overplaying it: that is impressive. That role was maybe the most important one in the whole movie and he was amazing. I've got to save some specific praise for a guy I'd never seen before named Justin Kirk who played what I think is the one main central character, if one exists in this movie. First thing I will say is this: I guess it's only been less than five years since this debuted, but I'm somewhat amazed that I haven't heard or seen much else from him in the interim. He played probably the most flamboyant character but like Wright he did it with a measured brilliance. As the movie progressed, I found myself wanting more and more scenes with his character, which I think is saying something considering both the talent he was surrounded by and the sheer length of the movie. I could be wrong, cause this is the only role I've ever seen him do, but if I were making a movie, no matter the subject, I think I'd find a way to get him in it, and that's about the best thing you can say for an actor.
4. In talking to her about the movie, of course encompassing the topic of homosexuality, Sara expressed to me her strong distaste for the way people use derogatory terms--even in jest and privately amongst a few friends--such as fag or retard or the like. Now, this is a definite talking point because the way I interact with people quite often is to say or do things that might knock the person off-balance a bit or make him feel uncomfortable. This can sometimes be achieved through a well-placed taboo word. I never do this in company that would be offended by it, and I'm quite sure (you can't ever be completely sure in our culture) that I don't actually harbor any predjudices or hatreds for minority groups, so I've never felt regretful about using these terms in such a way. Also, I'm actively aware of the power and the ugliness of these words (that's why I've used them for their full effect), so I feel a little more qualified than some ignorant cuss to use them every so often. However, as Sara effectively pointed out, even if somehow used respectfully or comically or privately, a word like fag is still a largely inappropriate word. It only has its power because it's derogatory and necessarily tied to it's insensitive genesis, so even using it as a jarring point in an attempted humorous way still must call to mind the ugly nature of the word, therefore of course reinforcing and perpetuating the ugliness. This is a big thing to realize.
But the biggest argument against my using these words is that, no matter how sensitive and sympathetic I may be to actual stigmatized groups of people, and no matter how certain I am that my usage of filthy words isn't directly injurious to anyone, it's really not up to me to decide whether a word is offensive or not. Since I'm not a homosexual and have never been subjected to the negative emotional impact of the word faggot, I am in no position to decide when it's ok to say it and when it's not. I thought about this for a while and concluded that it's really just that simple. And I can't now really find a way to justify using words like that, so I've resolved to stop doing it. But since it's almost second-nature to use them, albeit sparingly, I've asked Sara to mention it to me when I do slip up. So perhaps you will start to notice this in my speaking going forward. It will not be an accident. I'm curious to see how it goes.
"Yeah, every day, that's what they say. God is great."
"Uh-huh, God is great, every day."
-The entirety of the words heard just now during a one-floor ride on the freight elevator here at 90 Park Ave, exchanged between the elevator operator and a postal employee doing his morning rounds.
You just can't get away from it.
2. This morning on the elevator TV the news page displayed three bullet-point items. First one: "Sen Kennedy still in hospital recovering from seizure." Second one: "China plans three minutes of mourning today." The third one was of course superfluous.
3. Sara wanted me to watch "Angels in America" with her and so I did. It's six hours long, so my doing so does represent some kind of a commitment (though I did once read an 1100-page book at Jocelyn's behest, so this sort emasculation is not without precedent).
Hopefully this is not a sign of ignorance, but I was a little distracted by how gay it was early on. As it progressed, it was perfectly natural, but at the beginning it just seemed like too much. Of course I didn't know that homosexuality was the central theme, so it only made sense that nearly every character was either openly or closeted gay. Nonetheless, it took an hour or more to get used to it (as I am a fan of realism in movies).
It's a well-done movie (can you call it a film if it's made specifically for TV, in this case HBO?) based on a play that forced me to actively wonder how it might have been staged and whether or not the transformation to screen was effective. In the end I decided yes it was good but not great in this regard. The aspect that was spectacular was the acting, but then I guess it's to be expected when Al Pacino and Meryl Streep play large roles. The former is perfect for his part as he gets to do his Pacino intensity thing but he was also effectively kept in check unlike many of his more recent performances where he's just a silly representation of a charater as opposed to simply a character. I particularly enjoyed his speech patterns and general delivery (I think I might be becoming a speech/delivery fetishist regarding movies; this is also one of the main reasons I loved my boy Javier Bardem so much). Streep is also pretty much classic Streep: calm and not always the center of attention but pretty much always the best person on screen and the reason every scene she's in works so well. In this as in many of her roles, she's somewhat underappreciated unless you're looking for her.
The real reason the acting was so amazing though was not the top two names but all the rest. Everyone does very well. It's such a comprehensive display of good acting that I'm forced to give the director and the writer some credit for it. In fact, the only actor I didn't like a lot was Mary-Louis Parker, whom I think a lot of people liked. Maybe the guy who played her husband was just above-average as well, but that would be nit-picking.
Jeffrey Wright in his two roles was awesome. He played a gay queen in the most substantive one and was never ever overplaying it: that is impressive. That role was maybe the most important one in the whole movie and he was amazing. I've got to save some specific praise for a guy I'd never seen before named Justin Kirk who played what I think is the one main central character, if one exists in this movie. First thing I will say is this: I guess it's only been less than five years since this debuted, but I'm somewhat amazed that I haven't heard or seen much else from him in the interim. He played probably the most flamboyant character but like Wright he did it with a measured brilliance. As the movie progressed, I found myself wanting more and more scenes with his character, which I think is saying something considering both the talent he was surrounded by and the sheer length of the movie. I could be wrong, cause this is the only role I've ever seen him do, but if I were making a movie, no matter the subject, I think I'd find a way to get him in it, and that's about the best thing you can say for an actor.
4. In talking to her about the movie, of course encompassing the topic of homosexuality, Sara expressed to me her strong distaste for the way people use derogatory terms--even in jest and privately amongst a few friends--such as fag or retard or the like. Now, this is a definite talking point because the way I interact with people quite often is to say or do things that might knock the person off-balance a bit or make him feel uncomfortable. This can sometimes be achieved through a well-placed taboo word. I never do this in company that would be offended by it, and I'm quite sure (you can't ever be completely sure in our culture) that I don't actually harbor any predjudices or hatreds for minority groups, so I've never felt regretful about using these terms in such a way. Also, I'm actively aware of the power and the ugliness of these words (that's why I've used them for their full effect), so I feel a little more qualified than some ignorant cuss to use them every so often. However, as Sara effectively pointed out, even if somehow used respectfully or comically or privately, a word like fag is still a largely inappropriate word. It only has its power because it's derogatory and necessarily tied to it's insensitive genesis, so even using it as a jarring point in an attempted humorous way still must call to mind the ugly nature of the word, therefore of course reinforcing and perpetuating the ugliness. This is a big thing to realize.
But the biggest argument against my using these words is that, no matter how sensitive and sympathetic I may be to actual stigmatized groups of people, and no matter how certain I am that my usage of filthy words isn't directly injurious to anyone, it's really not up to me to decide whether a word is offensive or not. Since I'm not a homosexual and have never been subjected to the negative emotional impact of the word faggot, I am in no position to decide when it's ok to say it and when it's not. I thought about this for a while and concluded that it's really just that simple. And I can't now really find a way to justify using words like that, so I've resolved to stop doing it. But since it's almost second-nature to use them, albeit sparingly, I've asked Sara to mention it to me when I do slip up. So perhaps you will start to notice this in my speaking going forward. It will not be an accident. I'm curious to see how it goes.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
i was standing leaning over the rail on the deck behind the hermiller residence just now and in between puffs of my pipe i couldn't stop the feeling that i am completely happy right now. it's too pleasant. it's wonderful. someone just yelled my name in the back. i'm standing there on the rail looking around, in my shorts feeling utterly comfortable, watching the ebbs and flows of the party below me, watching someone other than myself man the grill, sensing people talking 360 degrees around me and passively absorbing everything. eventually my seventh sense causes my eye to wander around looking for reinforcement of the beauty within and i see her and she's not looking at me but she's close enough and it's comforting and it's exultant and i catch an icy bit of glory shooting from inside my chest out into the party. i feel like how the rain must feel when it sees a rainbow. maybe it's sad and maybe it's overly sappy but shit, it's it. and that's me now. pretty.
ran at least a mile more than i intended. got lost in Prospect Park. worst part of it is that the extra parts my foolishness subjected me to were largely uphill.
i have a thing about baby strollers. don't want to get into it now, but some of them seem more like aircraft carriers than simple transportation aids. this distaste is of course activated any time i come to Park Slope. on my walk from about 10th st down to 15th st, i passed six strollers. only one of which was of what i'd deem an acceptable size. i also passed one three-legged dog. he was moving slowly but seemed to be doing ok. interestingly, he hadn't been neutered. i guess the vet determined that since he didn't have two hind legs it would be somewhat difficult for him to mount a bitch. so in a twist of beautiful irony, he got to keep his manhood. his left hind leg was mere stub, and that coupled with a big pair of balls bouncing around, was rather odd to see.
i'm feeling weak in a way that's ok because i just finished running but distressing in that there is a keg being delivered here in about an hour. i sense some legitimate hot dog consumption in my future.
i have a thing about baby strollers. don't want to get into it now, but some of them seem more like aircraft carriers than simple transportation aids. this distaste is of course activated any time i come to Park Slope. on my walk from about 10th st down to 15th st, i passed six strollers. only one of which was of what i'd deem an acceptable size. i also passed one three-legged dog. he was moving slowly but seemed to be doing ok. interestingly, he hadn't been neutered. i guess the vet determined that since he didn't have two hind legs it would be somewhat difficult for him to mount a bitch. so in a twist of beautiful irony, he got to keep his manhood. his left hind leg was mere stub, and that coupled with a big pair of balls bouncing around, was rather odd to see.
i'm feeling weak in a way that's ok because i just finished running but distressing in that there is a keg being delivered here in about an hour. i sense some legitimate hot dog consumption in my future.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
1. Participated in the spectacle that is the Tribeca Film Festival. Actually, I just went and saw a new movie that's on the festival list because I got free tickets from a co-worker. There was no pomp, no celebrities, nothing whatsoever that would make me a cooler human being. Since you're wondering, the movie I saw was a documentary called Secrecy, which is naturally about government policies regarding classified information. It was a decent film, of good quality as you'd expect with a festival selection, but nothing exceedinly interesting in my opinion. In fact, they only touched on what I thought was the truly interesting angle: the fact that we're living in the "information age" and therefore everyone has more info than ever before and so the whole practice and gathering of classified intelligence would seem to be somewhat arcane and the huge struggle to hide what's nearly impossible to hide even more arcane. Instead they chose to pursue the GWBush is horrible/the government is a dirty secretive body/we have a right to know crap. It's all fine to uncover some illicit govermental moves to hide some facts, but I've seen all that before. It's called Frontline and it's on every week for free on PBS. I gave it a 3 out of 5 on the audience scorecard.
2. I had my first pop in maybe 2-3 years while watching the movie. It wasn't as monumental an occasion as it could have been as 1) it was only a diet, and 2) it was a fountain drink so not as aggressively carbonated. It was actually somewhat pleasant.
3. Along the lines of my New Yorker thought from last time, I stopped and thought about it just now when writing the word "pop." I've gotten infected with "soda" so much that "pop" doesn't come naturally anymore, and even when it does it somehow sounds odd in my head.
4. Dave thinks I'm not a good writer anymore. This is probably true. At least I'm not as spontaneous or perhaps as madly interesting as I was. It's because I'm happy. Or content. These are wonderful things to be, but for my own artistic purposes, not really conducive to exultant creation. Because I'm almost always happy, I don't have those lonely or horribly agitated or otherwise expansive emotional range that I used to. So my prose doesn't have as much range either. Or at least that's how I can explain it.
5. I'm always happy because of Sara. So Sara, shame on you for your one negative influence on my life. I'm not sure just yet how serious that sentence is. Not very, but maybe a tiny bit. I'll think about it.
2. I had my first pop in maybe 2-3 years while watching the movie. It wasn't as monumental an occasion as it could have been as 1) it was only a diet, and 2) it was a fountain drink so not as aggressively carbonated. It was actually somewhat pleasant.
3. Along the lines of my New Yorker thought from last time, I stopped and thought about it just now when writing the word "pop." I've gotten infected with "soda" so much that "pop" doesn't come naturally anymore, and even when it does it somehow sounds odd in my head.
4. Dave thinks I'm not a good writer anymore. This is probably true. At least I'm not as spontaneous or perhaps as madly interesting as I was. It's because I'm happy. Or content. These are wonderful things to be, but for my own artistic purposes, not really conducive to exultant creation. Because I'm almost always happy, I don't have those lonely or horribly agitated or otherwise expansive emotional range that I used to. So my prose doesn't have as much range either. Or at least that's how I can explain it.
5. I'm always happy because of Sara. So Sara, shame on you for your one negative influence on my life. I'm not sure just yet how serious that sentence is. Not very, but maybe a tiny bit. I'll think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
