Uncategorized

American Express

The recent story of Rachel Dolezal, the (now former) President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, being outed as white is fascinating and sad to me. She has been accused of posing as a black woman which, given her heretofore leadership position at the NAACP, makes her quite controversial.Dolezal’s choice to identify as a black woman had journalists investigating her family for some revelations. Her racial heritage was exposed, which called into question cultural experiences and expressions, and what constitutes valid expression of identity.

As this story exploded over the weekend and continues to unfold, many are more disturbed by her being a fraud, than by her choice of identity. Still, many find her identity choice rather curious, and further evidence of white privilege.

I find the issue fascinating as it brings to the forefront the cultural constructs we have for race, while pretending that it’s merely biological and physical. Moreover, it relates to how we have been stuck in tribalism. Even the word tribe conjures up traditional societies, often with biological origins and/or ethnic ties that have been distinguished from other political/socio-economic entities. Modern nation states consider themselves beyond the tribal wars of earlier eras or distant locales, but the tribal instinct seems to be universal and eternal.

If we are to truly evolve, we have to look at our own tribalism. Even when we identify with a particular ethnic group, or regional culture, we may inadvertently clutch in such a way that reinforces our identity by clinging inwardly and asserting that belonging is not a choice. It’s ethnic and historic, and one’s actions are not as significant as one’s biological and historical roots. Membership has it’s privileges: Others are excluded, and possibly ridiculed or disparaged (or worse). Sometimes, the identification with the particular ethnic group or tribe is more important than anything.

Except it isn’t. We’ve seen Balkan wars in Europe; tribal wars in Africa; Sunni and Shia in the Middle East; genocide, ethnic cleansing, segregation, and separate subcultures across modern democratic societies that have become increasingly insular, despite social diversity and acceptance of differences in an ever more diverse and globalized world.

There is still a lot of insider-ness by those who descended from those of outsider status. The MOT (Member of the Tribe) conversations among Jewish people is often nothing more than acknowledging someone’s Jewish heritage, but the very existence of the acronym MOT is troubling to me. I understand the reflex toward tribalism and identifying with a group or sub-culture. Ultimately, though, the inherent exclusion that comes with that identification is what triggers negative reactions regardless of tribe or social or ethnic group.

Americans pride themselves on self-expression. We profess individual freedom and the right to express oneself, but we rarely face our own tribalism, and the ways in which that gets expressed.

Different histories of repression and privilege seem intrinsic to our identifications.Physical features certainly provide the most obvious characteristics to link to a lineage and history and culture. We profess not to judge individuals based on their physical features, but we quickly identify individuals with a group.

Our politics is so tribal. Our institutions claim to be at least legally beyond tribal, but usually exist with sub-cultures and divisions. We may self segregate (or be forced to segregate due to historical policies that ensured certain divisions even if they are no longer legally mandated). Americans are not comfortable looking at the realities of our own tribalism and the ways in which we exclude and degrade—regardless of status. We understand our history of racism, but we are still clinging to group identities that we claim supports our own expression.

So the story of Rachel Dolezal is fascinating and sad to me. Her story raises so many questions about American expression of tribalism and individual choice and circumstance, as well as the convoluted situation of race that we are currently struggling with so profoundly. Perhaps her story, which is unique as it pertains to her specific life and family, is also one that highlights our American tribalism. Our American expression of freedom is always diminished when we retreat to our tribal instincts.

Name Calling

Call me Caitlyn. Call me Ishmael. Call me Irresponsible. Call me maybe. Don’t call me Shirley! But back to Caitlyn….

Jenner’s transformation is astonishing. The Vanity Fair cover is astonishing, as Jenner has been the physical representation of our cultural gender references for male and now, female. I couldn’t help but wonder if despite her phenomenal physicality and youthful appearance (and name), is Jenner showing her age by not showing her age in such an extraordinary manner?

First names go in and out of style (in America), with each generation. With cultural diversity, we have seen a dramatic shift in first names over the course of the last generation. Traditional anglo names are among a much broader array of names today. First names have traditionally been signifiers of gender, ethnicity, tradition, family, and sometimes era. Of course, we name others, except when we tweak our own name with a preferred nick-name.

Traditionally, a woman’s surname changed to her husband’s family name upon marriage. The surname identified the clan. The children would have the same surname as the father (and mother, until recently). This was always the assumption (until the1970s), with the exception of artists and performers. Even before the feminist movement of the 70s, women in show business kept their own last names. (Lucy Arnaz is the daughter of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Lucille Ball was not known as Lucy Arnaz!) The 70s brought hyphens and choices about names that were previously not mainstream. And of course, we were introduced to Ms.  Women didn’t have to be identified by marital status anymore—just like the guys.

For women, choosing a name for themselves (or keeping their birth names) was (is) empowering. Names became choice and autonomy, even when the choice is to share the spouse’s surname. It is not automatic anymore, just as a woman’s identity is more than a relation to a spouse (or lack thereof).

Our shameful history of denying and degrading cultural roots through assigning new names to slaves and to immigrants is important. Names have stories and significance and are choices—sometimes assigned; sometimes self generated. It is only in the last generation that we have seen tolerance for names (and recognized our cultural intolerance to cultural differences).

But we still judge names. Names are our credit. We still have associations that we make upon hearing/seeing names. We may be more tolerant, but we still form opinions (consciously or not) and/or have associations almost instantaneously upon hearing/seeing a name.

And gender identification (and what that may imply) is still very much a part of our encounter with the world. We may not realize the extent to which we experience the rest of the world in terms of gender. You may read articles differently, based on the writer’s name. I intentionally use a gender neutral name—Lou. I prefer to explore ideas as gender neutrally as possible. Gender informs our lives, but seeing beyond gender and our cultural constructs allows us to expand—to see beyond ourselves.

Back to Caitlyn….Jenner’s extraordinary transformation as seen on the cover of Vanity Fair with the headline, “Call Me Caitlyn”, was striking beyond the gender change. She identifies with the most girlish aspects of being female, and the most culturally retro. I understand that this is her debut, and of course the culturally feminine signposts are going to be accentuated, but I wonder if this is also somewhat generational. As we become more expansive of our understanding of gender, and the much broader experiences of gender over time, name calling will surely change more dramatically in future generations.

The Era of an End

The Me Generation birthed the iPeriod, which begat the Age of the Selfie. The epoch of the individual is now narrated by tweets and posts and snapshots of ‘epic’ moments.

From the Me Generation to the Age of the Selfie (and everything i in between), the self indulgence and endless self promotion has been the dark side of choice. “Free to Be You and Me”, which celebrated individual differences and diversity that is actually necessary for a healthy life and society, has been lost (or never gotten) by too many who distort individuality to having ‘the right’ to do ‘whatever I want whenever I want’ within (or without) the law.

Meanwhile, the laws have changed so that a corporation is a person under The Constitution, and Big Money defines politics more than the general electorate could. An individual’s vote is far less significant than a corporation’s donation to a SuperPAC.

Big Brother may be corporate or government, as our individual smart phones and tablets and devices, as well as our plastic currency, are hardly private. We live in a strange time of hyper-individualism with little privacy.

The conflicts between personal privacy and public safety are real and serious. Capturing dangerous behavior on a smartphone might be a life saver. Most agree that police with body cameras would be better than police with tanks.

Of course, this era of compromised privacy for greater security was ushered in with 911. National security against international terrorism was a collective cause, until collecting individual data with undue cause began to make us individually insecure. Policing the authorities has become as important an issue as policing everyone else.

Interestingly, the iPeriod began with iTunes and the iPod, which appeared in 2001,within months of the worst terrorist attack on American soil in American history. (Facebook appeared in 2004;You Tube appeared in 2005; Twitter appeared in 2006;and the iPhone appeared in 2007.) Seems like eons ago.

As all these technologies have become ubiquitous and refined, and more social media platforms and apps continue to be rolled out and shared at seemingly warped speed, the sense of I seems at once dominant and on the verge of extinction. Individualism and compromised privacy must coexist now.

The pervasiveness of these technologies in our lives over the last several years has allowed us to adjust and recalibrate our own possibilities and limits. Social norms have changed in a virtual world, and we are getting better acclimated to this reality. Individual behavior is perhaps captured more frequently and shared, and we are adapting. We are reconsidering our limits for public and private concerns and safety, and can gradually implement necessary measures to ensure that everyone is accountable. Where there was overreach, we can now modify. We must constantly be amending.

 

Even amendments. While we embark on the bumpy ride of the 2016 election, we need to reclaim our individual votes and our democracy from being bought out as a result of the ironically (or is it cynically?) named Citizens United. When our individual-ness as independent citizens is so thoroughly compromised, we need to usher in a new era to end Citizens United.

In this epoch of the individual, we have been trying to find our balance, as we have seemed very off kilter so much of the time. As we adapt to the connectivity and instantaneousness that new technologies have created, and rein in some of the messiness and excesses, we can easily access electronic means of democracy and virtually (and really) end the era of Citizens United. The iPeriod must favor individual people’s votes over Big Money. The Era of an End to Citizens United will be ushered in by individual people like you. Period.

 

B’More

The Gray Matter–The matter of 25 year old Freddy Gray’s death from a severed spine after being in police custody last week, has inspired peaceful protest for police reform, as well as outrageous violence, rioting, looting and arson. Gray was arrested by Baltimore Police 2 weeks ago. What exactly happened after he was taken into police custody is unclear, or at least unanswered to the public. The issue of police brutality has been painted in black and white, and the recent high profile cases of deaths occurring at the hands of police officers has much of the public outraged by excessive violence from the police.

The police departments have suggested that these tragedies have occurred within the confines of the law, and that violent suspects,or suspects near violence, have caused the police reactions. Kill or be killed. Is it just the rogue cop or two (in each precinct)? It’s got to be more than that.

Those who say that they understand the rage underneath the current violence in Baltimore because there are no longer decent jobs due to globalization, must be younger than I (and/or unaware of history). I was born and raised in B’more, and lived there until I was 17. Baltimore always seemed deeply segregated to me. Racially, economically, ethnically…..and there was a terribly impoverished inner city long before globalization. I moved from Baltimore in 1981. It was always an extremely dangerous (and sad) place to me, despite its other charms. There are beautiful areas, historic, cultural, quirky, and also the hideous stuff that provided the stories for “The Wire” and “Homicide”.

It is easy to lump all the recent police brutality incidents together; all these racially charged incidents together; impoverished areas with high crime rates together. There are indeed similarities and patterns.There also seems to be an unwillingness to acknowledge the entrenched tragedies on all sides: thugs who are cops and thugs who are not cops; an entrenched system of economic failure and a culture of violence; lack of vision; lack of hope; lack of change; lack of leadership; lack of decent homes, schools, or jobs; not being more.

The violence following the protests and funeral for Freddy Gray yesterday were disturbing and sad, but sadly, not unfamiliar nor unexpected. We wanted B’more to BE MORE. We want all of our communities to BE MORE for all of us. We want our police to BE MORE for all of us. We want our elected officials to BE MORE for all of us. We want our schools and medical facilities to BE MORE for all of us.

Maybe the takeaway from B’More is just that. Be More than your circumstances. Be More than your fears. Be More than your anger. Be More than your habits. Be More than your desires. Be More than you’ve been, or than you might have been. Be more for all of us.

Bubbling Crude

Today is the 5th anniversary of the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, affecting the beaches and wetlands from Texas to Florida. The deadly accident on the Deepwater Horizon rig killed eleven workers when it exploded, and gushed oil for nearly 3 months uncontrolled. This environmental disaster has been our nation’s worst to date, affecting lives and livelihoods and wildlife across the region.

The spill’s impacts remain to this day.

Today is also the 16th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting– a devastating event that we thought was an anomaly. In the 16 years since, we’ve seen countless shootings–and several mass shootings–of innocents (and innocence). Those who gush about their right to protect themselves are quick to deny the consequences of gun culture and violence, and any sort of responsibility for ensuring freedom for those who are unlucky enough to be in the path of a disturbed individual (or two).

When madness bubbles over, and we lack sophistication in our abilities to de-escalate, we are left with the crude culture of violence and abuse, limiting lives long after the initial explosion,polluting our environment.

Those tragic anniversaries of devastation linger not only because they were utterly horrific and wake-up calls, but even more tragically, because they continue to devastate,  and remain unresolved and likely to happen again at any moment.

Policies (and certainly politics) related to guns and the environment have not changed significantly; nor has the culture at large changed with regard to environmental or gun regulation. Regulation is still considered by many to be an infringement upon freedom, rather than the standards for health and safety for all. And while our health care system has been fought over, those afflicted by mental illness are still too often not able to obtain necessary treatment. The effects are not only individual. Individual health affects public health. The ways in which we treat our ailments, individually and societally, still seem crude.

I’m not one to ascribe significance to a date that has had terrible tragedies. As we move through history, there will be more events (good and bad) occurring on the same date. Sometimes there is significance, and often it is crude. I seem to recall that the reason April 20th was selected as the date for the massacre at Columbine High School was because it was Hitler’s birthday.

Hate bubbles to the service in each generation, but how we deal with hate and indifference, as well as greed and ignorance, each crude states, can be (and must be) challenged anew.

The 2016 race has officially begun, but I feel like it’s still the bubbling crude. It’s as though we are coated in greed, indifference, hate and violence–stuck in the gulf. We have become a more crude culture, and we’ve seen the deleterious effects when it bubbles to the surface.

We have a lot more cleaning up to do. Maybe, remembering the flammability of that bubbling crude will inspire more alternative energies going forward.

It Is What It Isn’t

It isn’t bigotry; it’s freedom of religion. It isn’t mass murder; it’s Depression. It isn’t diplomacy; it’s appeasement.

It isn’t rape; it’s drunken sex. It isn’t obstruction; it’s Democracy. It isn’t murder; it’s self defense. It isn’t spying; it’s security. It isn’t union busting; it’s the right to work. It isn’t about public health; it’s about private choice.

It seems like we actually spend our lives on what something or someone isn’t. We have a tradition of distinguishing ourselves from others by emphasizing other-ness. Even with our history of civil rights and feminism, expanding rights for all sorts of people once excluded, the current zeitgeist is not one of inclusion and expansion. Critical thinking has largely been distorted into oppositional thinking.

Say it isn’t so!

We’ve shifted from what it is to what it isn’t, as we’ve been bombarded with challenges to our assumptions:

It’s a slam-dunk! (for which we are paying unimagined consequences in the Middle East).

It’s a no brainer!

It’s a sure thing!

It’s a 10!

It’s a boy!

It’s complicated.

The truth is, it is complicated. There are different views and facets and understandings and expressions of much of life. Concepts of gender, of life, of liberty, of religion, and so many constructs that were historically entrenched….are still evolving. It doesn’t feel like evolution when we seem so mired, and it is easy to feel despair.

It is what it is. The sigh of stalemate. We don’t hear “c’est la vie”  any more. We say “it is what it is”, like pop zen masters (or Winnie the Pooh). When we don’t know what else we can do, we can acknowledge that it is what it is. Move on.

We don’t seem to be moving on by what it isn’t. It isn’t right. It isn’t safe. It isn’t about you (or me). It isn’t working.

So many articles are written to sound as though previously held notions were naive, or misguided, or wrong. It’s as though some people think they sound smarter by debunking anything we’ve known prior to now. It seems as though everything you thought was true isn’t. It is what it isn’t. Aside from being able to eat butter and drink coffee now, this new moment of deconstruction requires critical thinking, not just being critical.  Some previously held ideas and constructs that seemed to be true and even natural deserve to be queried. But, not everything must be turned inside out or dismantled.  In fact, there seems to be a dearth of common sense and wisdom, much less decent behavior. And there is certainly a lack of common good.

So how do we move beyond it is what it isn’t? Acknowledge that it is what it is, but doesn’t always have to be this way or simply the mirror opposite (that way). Movement happens between (and/or beyond) those points–where there is space to move. We know there is a better way, isn’t there?

Convenience Stores

Wait…What??? Hillary took to the world stage yesterday to tell us that while on the world stage as Secretary of State, she found it more convenient to store her emails on a private server at her Chappaqua home, than having 2 email accounts on one device.

Her well crafted explanation, which included everything people would like to like about her–her work on behalf of women, her being a mother (of the bride), a loving daughter, a yogi–as well as a fierce comment calling out the 47 senators whose chutzpah is far beyond Clintonian as they penned an open letter to Iran, openly undermining our President and arduous diplomatic efforts–did not excuse (or even really explain) why she opted for convenience and waited to respond to revelations about her emails. All this waiting when it was really just a matter of convenience?

Even if there’s no there there, we know what’s in store with Hillary. She assumes that we get how virtuous she is, but her actions (and inactions) call her virtuosity into question time and time again. How inconvenient for her that questions about where and why she stored her emails the way she did as Secretary of State are cropping up now as she is about to announce her candidacy for the presidency.

Even if she broke no laws, and put forth the same quantity of emails as other Secretaries of State and other candidates, her silence until yesterday was deafening. The “he did it too” argument is ridiculous. Her talents are consistently undermined by these sorts of choices, even if they are legal. Those who were hoping that her strengths would manifest not only in winning the Presidency, but in good governance, fear that the Presidency is lost without her, and they justify her choices. It’s too scary to think that it’s more than inconvenient for a Hillary presidency to blow up before she officially runs.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Hillary. But maybe we need someone else to mind the store.

Lots

Lots and lots going on this week

suggesting who we are

and what we seek

and whether these moments

are indeed unique.

**********

Bohener’s gift to the GOP

was a powerful speech

by PM Bibi.

Then another gift,

courtesy of Hilary.

***********

Homeland Security is secure

at least until September.

The month when we feel most unsure

if we’ve endured the worst

or must prepare for more (war?).

**********

It seems as though we most desire

basic heroes and villains,

whose masks hide the quagmire

we find ourselves in,

when we neglect what we truly require.

**********

Lots of stories, and the story of lots

This week, the whole megillah.

Heroes and villains and twists of plots

Is Iran still Persia?

My stomach’s in knots.

**********

As the season of Carnival gives way to Lent,

regardless of one’s tradition,

perhaps we’ll find that in the present

we can draw lots

of new possibilities with a shift of intent.

Fashion Statements

Who are you wearing?The Oscars are known for the red carpet fashion show of Hollywood stars, but political and social statements have also become part of the awards spectacle. The Oscars have become the vehicle for those in the movie biz to declare their causes and directions for the country. This year, the winners used their movies as starting points to inspire movements from securing voting rights, to equal pay for women, to immigration rights, ALS research and cure, Alzheimers research and cure….suicide prevention, LGBT rights, better treatment for Veterans, I’m sure there’s more….

All of these are worthy of attention and commitment, and why shouldn’t famous people use their fame for good causes? For a group of professionals who have agents and writers, and yes, stylists, why did their statements seem so ineloquent? Sure the excitement of the moment and nervousness, not to mention time limit, may have contributed to some earnest but awkward statements, but I think there was also an overconfidence that their profession equipped them to be eloquent and elegant in real life at an emotional moment. Important statements need to be fashioned in such a way that considers interpretation and what will remain after the moment.

Movies can be incredibly powerful, precisely because they are crafted, honed, edited, produced by an array of talented individuals. The audio visual work and the words can be examined and fashioned so that the statement has the most effective impact. Movies inspire in positive and negative ways. (We see this with ISIS.)  Of course, not all movies are statements and not all statements move us. But we often follow those who fashion statements.

Before the Oscars, the statements by Rudy Giuliani attacking President Obama’s patriotism were leading news cycles and commentaries. I worry about Mr. Giuliani. He should have enough experience to know that inspiring hate, and instilling fear and paranoia are not the same as critical analysis, or critiquing policies. He doubled down on his comments before writing an op-ed (with no apology) to attempt to put out the fire he ignited. But he can’t undo what he did. Spewing is not the same as a fashioned statement.

The elites don’t seem to be the ones who are defined by the best education, but by those who have the media attention. They have the followers. Even those of us who prefer to follow unbiased news, and think for ourselves, see that our country is following those whose statements are the loudest–not necessarily the most studied or well fashioned.

The Oscars, with all its irrelevance amid attempts at relevance (like Guiliani himself), did however leave us with a couple of well fashioned statements. The bit that left us all a bit gaga, was the Lady herself, as she pulled the most outrageous stunt of all: she wowed with her incredible, authentic voice without any frills. Just a statement of excellence, fashioned to perfection. The other statement, of course, was by J. K. Simmons: “Call your Mom!”  Funny how that’s trending!  Fashioned statements–even basic pieces–require consideration and our best practices. 

Fine Lines, Wrinkles and Age Spots

The wrinkles in Brian Williams’ story (stories?) have caused his six month suspension, and plenty of outrage on social media. Some on the left have said that his embellishments are less serious than the embellishments and lies that are regularly put forth by politicians and other news outlets.(I say, that’s no excuse.)  Of course, the story points to the iconic role of the American news anchor(man) on network broadcast news–a model that has weathered feminism (sort of), but not the information age.

Perhaps it’s a fine line between an embellishment and a lie, but it seems clear now, that if Williams was not even in the same helicopter that was under fire, his story constitutes a lie. The wrinkle for Williams is that his job is based on trust. The public depends on accurate reporting and truth. Mistakes happen, but knowingly reporting falsehoods is not a mistake. It’s just wrong.

The anchor is the person or thing that provides stability and confidence, particularly during uncertain situations. Jon Stewart, anchor of The Daily Show, has always maintained that he is a comedian/satirist (and has since added writer/director to his resume), but over the last 17 years, has become a real anchor. His faux news show has been more truthful, and taken more seriously, than many non-comedic news programs. His recent announcement that he will leave The Daily Show will undoubtedly be a wrinkle for Comedy Central, but the program, or whatever will replace it, will probably have an audience. He built trust and kept us informed and giggling through extremely uncertain, and often painful, times.

What is most revealing in these two stories that played out this week, practically back to back, is our profound need for an anchor. We may not necessarily need the 6:30 or 7:00 Nightly News, as our lives have changed so dramatically from the days when that was the news time. There have been many wrinkles for broadcast news that have rendered the past and current broadcasts beneath their tasks. The fine lines between news and entertainment continue to be injected with fillers. The comedians do a much finer job of treating wrinkles in the news stories. They may be entertaining first, but the intelligence and integrity are apparent, and engage us completely. It’s what the news programs used to do–anchor us.

Spotting the need for an anchor is one that we might not have thought about in previous  generations. Each age of television has had its anchors and standard bearers in news and entertainment. The broadcast news and late night talk shows have endured with their basic formatting for a few generations now. The Daily Show combined those formats and blended the faux news show with a talk show type interview (think Jack Parr) that has been must see tv or wherever for young and young at heart for about a generation and a half in tv years. It remains to be seen if the Daily Show will continue beyond Stewart, but his leaving has left so very many feeling adrift.

The age of The Daily Show has been one fraught with formerly unimaginable craziness and extreme everything–political,environmental, social, religious climate change. This, of course, has intersected with the internet age and the miracles of googling, wikipedia, youtube–all standard and in the palm of one’s hand–rendering network television news quaint, at best. At worst, well…..that’s what we have now.

What I noticed with the surprise and sadness this week, and the profound need for an anchor, is that despite the sense that many have that we are in a steady decline in practically every domain, we have not lost our sense of excellence. We want mensches–those who can discern the fine lines between embellishment and lying, and then be truthful. We can spot truthiness (thank you Stephen Colbert), and in this day and age, we need all the intelligence, rich vocabulary, critical thinking, challenging questions, compassion, integrity  and generosity that has been on display on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. These attributes are what anchor us.

So, while there may be some wrinkles to be smoothed out, we know that what’s true for the ages will keep us anchored. And laugh lines are beautiful.