Spontaneous Musings

Several major court and legislative decisions were made today in the USA, which may or may not be of interest to you. Here's a run-down in case you were asleep or busy elsewhere.

1. DOMA SUPREME COURT RULING

The Supreme Court overturned a key portion of DOMA Act - which was considered a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

In a 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns -- to same-sex couples legally married. - according to CBS News. It was struck down as being against the Equal Protection Clause.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

( Read more... )

2) In regards to Proposition 8 - it was not struck down so much as passed over.
According to the CBS News site:

At the same time, the court ruled 5-4 that the defendants in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which considered the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban (called Proposition 8), have no standing in court. Supporters of Prop. 8 brought the case to the Supreme Court after a lower court struck down the law but California's governor and attorney general declined to defend it. By dismissing the case on procedural grounds, the court passed up the opportunity to issue a significant ruling on the issue of marriage.

"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan.

The practical impact of dismissing the Prop. 8 case is limited. It leaves the lower court ruling striking down Prop. 8 in place, applying statewide at best. However, the ruling may apply only to couples who directly challenged Prop. 8, or the counties in which they originally made those challenges. The lawyers who defended Prop. 8 said Wednesday that they are committed to seeing that Prop. 8 is enforced in the state.

( Read more... )

3.) While this is wonderful news, and I certainly applaud both rulings. Not all is well...the Supreme Court also curtailed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here's some key links towards understanding the act and the ruling:

* What Would a 2013 Voting Rights Act Look Like?

* The Supreme Court Invalidates Two Key Sections of the Act, Sections 4 and 5

First off, what is the act? Good question, from Wiki.
( Read more... )
The Voting Rights Act prevented Texas for example, from redistricting areas with large Latino populations to benefit primarily white voting districts and white candidates. It also prevented Texas from instituting a voter ID law. Overturning these sections permits Texas to do those two things.

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation. From the NY Times Article.
( Read more... )
The rational behind the decision was that when the ACT was passed the country's population was vastly different. But now that we have a black president, black mayors and legislators, the legislation is outdated and no longer required.

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

As for my own take on this ruling, I find myself nodding along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginseberg who wrote the dissent:

"In the Court's view, the very success of §5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy," Ginsburg responded. "Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the VRA."

She wrote that the law was a landmark solution to an important problem in history.

"The Voting Rights Act became one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation's history," Ginsburg declared. "Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made."

Ginsburg then cited a long list of voting rights transgressions that states have committed in the last half-century, which she said "fill the pages of the legislative record." She concluded that the Supreme Court had "erred egregiously" with its decision.

From The Huffington Post.

Two steps forward two steps back...reminds me of the Texas Two-Step.

4) Speaking of Texas, the The Texas Abortion Bill is Dead due to a 13 Hour Filibuster by a Female State Senator.
( Read more... )

All in all an interesting day in US law.

1. Been in a irritable mood of late...although irritable may not be the right word. Words..finding the correct, precise word. And even then..you are never quite certain if the meaning you've attached to this particular word is shared by someone else. Dictionaries while helpful can be useless. I'm actually fairly good at figuring out the meaning of a word - due in part to my dyslexia. People with dyslexia process language differently. We determine the meaning through context. We listen with our whole bodies not just our ears. Watch the face, the hands, the body. The vocal inflection. And within paragraphs or sentences..focus on the surrounding words and how they interact with each other. Not sure why I'm irritable...could be many reasons, but there it is. Am hoping it like all things is temporary. Most likely caused by pent-up frustration.

2. Church...

F: Wait, he practices Hannukkah and he goes to your church and he's Jewish?
Me: Well yes, he practices Hanukkah, like I do Christmas.
F: But the Unitarian Church practices Christmas.
Me: It practices Hannukkah too (along with Passover... and a few neo-pagan celebrations, and we have a Ramadan dinner)
F: Unitarianism is a weird religion.


Today, the sermon gave me a bit of chill up the spine...and brought tears. I didn't think it would.
And we applauded, which we don't generally do. It was a story...about a pilgrimmage to the Underground Railroad, from Ripley, Ohio to Augusta, Kentucky. Stumbling into a park, the minister, who is a bit of a poet, told of how they followed the railroad to a piece of cursed earth, a bright and sunny day turned forbodeing with sudden storm clouds, and up upon the hill in still sunny Ohio stood the house of the abolitionist, Rankin, , and a museum associated with him. They'd traveled across the river from the abolitionist's house to this park in Augusta, Kentucky. And here stood...the slave jail. With a dungeon. And compact cages. It stunk of despair, and pain. The minister asked the woman at the tourist information center, who had fliers about the Underground Railroad if she had any information on this jail. But she did not and sternly stated she knew nothing about it. Nearby there was a pool, tennis courts, playground.. and she, the minister, wondered how this could be? How could people play tennis near this old slave jail? She wandered back across the River to Rippling, Ohio and asked the same questions about the jail at the abolitionist museum. But the woman running the museum and Q&A, the historian there, said she knew nothing about this jail. This jail that sat on the Underground Railroad. Was part of the new historic tour - which all these fliers had been printed up on. The minister asked again. And the woman, sternly, responded, no, I don't have any information on the jail, I've lived in Ripley all my life and I've only been across the bridge to Augusta, Kentucky - three times. It struck the Minister as odd...was their friction or competition between these historians? Did the two town's not like each other? And why no additional information on this slave jail, outside of the fact that it was indeed a slave jail?
And the minister said...it occurred to her that she was on a pilgrimmage of sorts into the past,
with the present pressing upon it. A pilgrimmage mixed with tourism, fliers, and buttons, and t-shirts bought and sold about the Underground Railroad. And she thought...the slave jail needed to be remembered as well, not overlooked. For if we do not reflect on what has gone in the past,
than we cannot fix it in the present and future. We have to look back, reflect on what was done, what happened because of it, see the pain for all it is worth, if only to ensure we learn from it, and do not do it again.

This moved me. The image of this horrible jail, half-forgotten, in the middle of a park. With little information regarding it. And then, I read a description of the novel Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer - where the South's defense of slaver is blamed upon a Cabal of Vampires. The vampire a metaphor for the evil that allowed such a thing to exist. A thing that still exists in areas of our world.

Too much sharing happened at church..but it was necessary I think. I've been pondering this..but the problem with interaction with others - is it all occurs on a superficial level. ( Read more... )


3. Been reading interesting posts on my flist about an essay on Sherlock Holmes, which I can't really read since it contains spoilers for S2 of the series. And that doesn't air here until February. But what I've managed to grab from the essay is this small bit of wisdom. Labeling writers or works as feminist or non-feminist, particularly fictional stories...is a bit problematic. Since most stories, if they are well told, do not fit into such neatly defined categories. And even if the story does come across as feminist or the characters do, and can be defended as such - this does not mean the writer is. Any more than it means the writer isn't feminist or is a misogynist, if the story and characters are perceived to be, shall we say, in that derogatory light. People aren't that black and white unfortunately. In all honesty? I really can't tell you whether Joss Whedon is a feminist or not. Or even Stephen Moffat for that matter. I don't know. I can speculate. But not with any clarity. Any more than I can tell you if TS Eliot was or for that matter Keats, CS Lewis, Byron, or any number of people. As for their stories? They can be perceived in multiple ways. For me, now, as an adult, the Chronicles of Narnia seem to be incredibly sexist, but as a child of 10, I adored them and did not see that at all. Who knows which version of me was right. And does it matter? I know why I don't like Whedon's work post Buffy the tv series, and post Angel that much...but explaining why...well, not sure it matters, but it's complicated. And I've found I don't have the words. Half of you understand. Half of you don't. It feels a bit like politics or religion actually.

4. The Good Wife was quite good tonight. A puzzle box, layers within layers. Once Upon a Time was too, although...not as good. But it's late and I didn't plan on staying up til 12 writing this. So going to bed am I.

Quodlibetical, a. - Not restrained to a particular subject; discussed for curiousity or entertainment

Quahog, n. A large species of clam.

The above more or less explains most of my livejournal entries. Except for possibly this one, which is more about curiousity and not so much on the entertainment.

Today, we did diversity training. I've done this several times now - twice in companies, at least three times in school, plus had a legal class on it. And had a school chum do a sociological study on it. We both majored in English Lit. She minored in sociology, I minored in cultural anthropology. We had all sorts of interesting debates about minorities and diversity in school. She focused on statistical makeup, I focused on getting to know people and understand different religions and cultures. Basically one was quantitative analysis and the other qualitative analysis. As a result, her conclusion was that our college was woefully non-diverse and mine was it was wonderfully diverse.

Anywho. In the class we took this little statistics quiz and here's some interesting stats that they threw at us. (For the purposes of the stat's below, nation = US. This isn't global.)

1. 75% of all working-age American Women are in the labor market. 47.6% comprise the labor pool of the NYC and Long Island area. 15.5% are in my company.

2. Minorities comprise 48% of the labor pool of Long Island and New York City area.

3. The average age of the nation's workforce is 40 and projected to rise to 41 by the year 2010.

4. Immigrants makeup 14.4 % of Long Island's population. (Yes, I thought it was more than that too.)

5. 10% of the percentage of the nation's population is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual.

6. 20% of America's workforce is disabled as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

7. There are 54 million persons with disabilities in the US.

8. 35.6% of all cases filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2008 alleged discrimination/harrassment based on 1) race (35.6 %), 2)retailation (34.3%) and 3) sexual harrassment/gender bias (29.7%)

9. 4.6% of all cases filed with the EEOC in 2008 were found to have some legal merit.
( somewhat rambling bit about the class and somewhat personal. )

Missed the concession speech last night and the acceptance speech, but did stay up late enough to see Barack Obama get 297 electoral votes. Now he has 349. He won, surprisingly, Indiana and Virgina. North Carolina remains too close to call - which if you know anything about North Carolina - that is remarkable.

For the first time in eight years, I am proud to be American. [With the possible exception of the three states that passed propositions banning same-sex marriage - which just makes me angry and incredibly sad. It's apparently going to take us a lot longer to get past homophobia. I guess the first step is for people to admit they are homophobic and bigoted. Here's a tip: If you are against same-sex marriage or against homosexuals having the right to marry, have/raise children, have access to spousal health care and death benefits that come with marriage - than yes, you are a bigot and homophobic. There is no middle ground here, folks. Apparently we take two steps forward and two steps back no matter what we do. As a species, we still have a lot of maturing to do.]

Responses at work were mixed.( Work reactions, and minor rant )

I love Obama. Just watched him on the news, he said that what makes him angriest is meaness, when people put others down. The person he respects the most is Nelson Mandela. I haven't felt this inspired about a leader in my life. I honestly think Obama is going to be good for my country. He already has been.

At work feeling sluggish, I felt for the first time in I can't remember how long, calm. As if all the anxiety and fear had been removed from my shoulders. I felt filled with hope.

Last night, Wales and I bar-hopped for election results from 7-9pm. We started in a hipster bar that was almost too crowded. Then went to a conservative bar (yes they exist in NYC)that was empty, without any election results. We had to get them to turn to it. They wanted Fox News, we requested any other channel. She begrudgingly did so, then went to the end of the bar. The vibe was bad in that place. So we jumped to a wine bar - which was much rowdier and happier, except for an odd guy in a corner reading a book by Richard Rhodes on War. Finally around 9:15, after Obama got Pennsylvania. Woo-hoo! We went home.

Called my folks - when he got Ohio, and it was 206. But we still weren't sure. CNN was cracking me up, the pro-McCain guy on it (you know the one that John Stewart keeps making fun of), kept saying :" I've done the math five times and I can't figure out how McCain can win this. The only way is if he gets California, but even then, not sure it is enough." At that point Obama had won Virgina, Ohio, Iowa, and PA, along with NY.

The news flipped to Times Square - which had over a million people celebrating as it were New Years Eve! People were screaming for joy.

Now, watching Oprah...who said when she started the show, and it's a comment worth repeating -"For my viewers who were not amongst the 52% who voted for Barack, I understand your pain, believe me, if it had gone the other way, I would be doing my show from Northwestern University Hospital with an intravenous drip." (Sigh, me too, me too. I don't know if I could survive an McCain/Palin win. Not after these last eight years.)

It feels like we've all walked through this very dark tunnel and come out the other side.
I told a woman at work today that if Bush hadn't won the last two elections, if it weren't for those 8 years, I don't think Obama would have been even a candidate. I think if Gore won, McCain may have become President. Was talking to my mother about this, and we agreed that Newt Gringich and Bush and Cheney destroyed their own party. Let me back up and explain that theory - a bit. Our system of government was never meant to be about parties, it's not like the UK or Canada. The branchs are supposed to check each other. When Republican's got both houses of Congress, and the White House, President Bush stopped treating Congress as a separate branch. There's a lengthy article in this month's New Yorker - about Chuck Hagel. A Republican Senator who got annoyed with his own party, and frustrated with the President, who unlike the previous ones, would not talk to him or even listen. He treated Congress as an extension of his own power base. A "rubber stamp". Which lead to two wars and a financial crisis, and the end of their power. Worth noting, according to the news, Republicans stayed home from the polls yesterday. Democrates out-voted Republicans 2-1.

I know this is rambling, but then, most of my posts are - "spontaneous musings". My mother told me a story that touched me today and listening to Peggy Noonan, a Wall Street Journal columnist - who voted for McCain (I don't think she's capable of voting any other way, which is okay.), anyhow...one of my parents close friends from their days in Chicago, way back in 1968, the year after I was born - wrote them a surprising email. He like many, used to be liberal and had become conservative over the years. (As a Government Teacher in High School once told me - when you're young, if you aren't liberal, you have no heart, and when you are old and not conservative - you have no brains. Silly statement by the way, I get that now, but ...well you know.) This friend was planning on voting for John McCain or that's what he told my parents prior to the election. Well, last night, he sent an email - just after the acceptance speech to his son and friends and family. In it, he told my parents that he remebered being with them in Grant Park in 1968 during the race riots, and the fires, during the height of the civil rights movement. Now to see a black man address a peaceful capacity crowd of over a million in that same park, which had once been the site of race riots, was a sight to behold. And yes, he had with pride voted for Barack Obama. Not because he was black, but because he was the best man for the job.

Barack Obama is Martin Luther King's Dream come true - a day in which a man is not judged on the color of his skin. Sure there were a few who voted along race lines, blacks who voted for him because of his skin color, and whites who voted against for those reasons. But the vast majority? Did not. That is something to be proud of.

I am so happy. Today was tough to focus during. I felt tired. And sluggish. As if I was thinking through water. But all through it, I kept smiling, because of what happened last night.

Be seeing lots of posts on lj about racism and sexism in television casting and storytelling plots lately. So I got curious and wondered if anyone had done an objective analysis. Searched the net and found the following articles, sites and data regarding the topic. Demonstrating several things I more or less already knew - the world is made incredibly small by the internet, the US is not the only country who has difficulty with this issue (unfortunately), and we are actually doing much better than we did a few years ago - sort of two steps forward and two steps back then two steps forward again. I'm beginning to think that's life in general - an absurd version of the Texas Two-Step.

Case in point:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer first aired in 1997. At that time, if you read some of the links below or just scan them like I did, you'll realize that the networks were under the misbegotten belief that placing minorities in lead roles was bad for business. The NAACP got pissed and took them to task over this around 1999-2000. There were of course a couple of exceptions - but they weren't young teen shows. The exceptions were ER, Homicide Life on the Streets, the situation comedies on UPN, and the cast of Star Trek Voyager. DS9 was also an exception, but I think almost off the air at that point. Star Trek unlike most genre television, was actually pretty good with minority casting. Gene Roddenberry sort of broke the barrier wall in that regard in the 1960s with the original Trek - airing tales about racism on his show. But most TV shows contained white casts - such as Friends and Sex in the City, which if you live in NYC, you'll realize how unrealistic these shows are. This did not really change until around 2000, when the NAACP and SAG screamed at the US TV networks over it. SAG began to tabulate the number of female and minority roles in TV , Film and Theater in 1993 - releasing reports on the status, every couple of years, their data backed up the NAACP's claims.

Veronica Mars started after Buffy finished its run, in the fall of 2003, hailed by many fans as the new, albeit more racially diverse, Buffy. At the time Veronica aired, another backlash had occurred - the number of female roles and how women were being depicted was brought into question - articles littered the NY Times - blasting shows such as Boston Legal, Criminal Minds, Supernatural, and several quickly cancelled procedurals, as well as Veronica Mars for their lacklustre treatment of women. David E. Kelly got the message and added Candace Bergen to his cast. Supernatural hiding on the CW, then WB, got little fanfair. BattleStar Galatica was raved about as was Desperate Housewives. Grey's Anatomy starting mid-season, surprised everyone by doing much better than Boston Legal. Women, networks discovered, were a key demographic they could not ignore. Just as minorities were.

If you compare the casts of Veronica Mars to Buffy, you'll notice a couple of interesting factors.

Veronica, which began on UPN, which was targeting African Americans, had more men and less women in its lead cast over the three years it aired. It also had more minorities. The male best-bud - was African American, the biker guy, Hispanic. The Cordelia chick - African-American.

Buffy, which began on WB and was targeting a teen white female and male audience - had less men, but few minorities. In fact, you rarely saw any until around 1998 - or Season 3 of the series. Trick - was introduced around that period as a recurring character.By Season 4 - 1998-1999, we had Riley's friend and Gunn introduced in 1999 on Angel. In 2000...before Buffy moved to UPN, there's barely a minority in sight. When Buffy eventually moves to UPN, she stands out a bit like a sore thumb. If you check out UPN's shows during that period - almost all of them with the possible exception of Buffy and one other tv series, had minority casts. The Jamie Fox Show preceeded Buffy. At the same time, the NAACP and SAG were telling the networks that they had to cast more minorities. 2002-2003 rolls along and we start to see the recurring roles filled by minority cast members - including Iyari as Kennedy, Rhona, Wood, Nikki Wood as the First, several of the slayers, and an African American Pop singer who plays a demon that takes an interest in Xander. Buffy premiered towards the end of the 1990s, a period that had few television series with minorities, and in which the networks and advertisers were ignoring the minority demographic. If you look at the young adult and teen shows during that period, which included Dawson's Creek, Gilmore Girls, 90210, Melrose Place, Friends, Seinfeild, Will and Grace... you'll notice that there were few minorities in them. Prior to this period we had Doogie Howser, Square Pegs, and the Wonder Years - which were also minority free or close to it.

In the 21st Century - The higher rated series - are ones that have minorities and women in their casts now. House, Lost, Desperate Housewives, Ugly Betty, Grey's Anatomy, Heroes, even BSG which is getting higher ratings on cable. In demographic studies - more African Americans, Women, and Hispanics were found to watch television than Caucasions, and men. Interesting. This may or may not have an effect on the change.

I thought about doing a statistical analysis of genre tv shows, to see how many women and minorities each cast, but I don't the time or energy. Curious to know if anyone else has attempted it - just to see the numbers. The one's I'm most interested in seeing are:

Buffy
Angel
Supernatural
Star Trek the Next Generation
Battle Star Galatica
Firefly
Smallville
Doctor Who

In the non-genre series category -

The West Wing (which I know was too lily white when it began and got loads of criticism, it was one of the shows attacked in the 90s for not having a diverse cast)
Grey's Anatomy
ER
Chicago Hope
CSI

I'd also love to see a demographic analysis of those series. How many whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, women, and men watch and what age groups.

Anywho, for those who are interested here's the links I found worth looking at regarding the representation of minorities and women in television roles from 1973-2007. I could not find any data for 2008. These also serve as my endnotes or references for the points I made above.

Stung by Criticism In 1999 Networks Start to Add Minorities to TV Shows - The West Wing is Singled Out"

The Numbers Game - 1994

Minorities and the Media- Little Ownership and Even Less Control

Anything But Racism: Media Make Excuses for White Washed Line-up - 2000

Census 2006 - Shows Changes in TV and Interactive Media Sectors (UK-2006, British Broadcasting employment stats)

Recognition & Respect: a Content Analysis of Primetime Characters across three decades

Gender and Television - how women are depicted on TV - goes up to 90s

Casting the American Scene - a Look at Characters on PrimeTime and Daytime Television From 1994-1997 - Fairness & Diversity in Television: Update and Trends since the 1993 Screen Actors Guild Report on Women and Minorities on TV

Canadian Law regarding Sex-Role Portrayal Code in Radio and Television Broadcasting"

Media Watch - Associations around the world dedicated to monitoring how women are portrayed on TV and how to correct it"

"Stastical Report on Women's Roles on TV"

Media Awareness Reports - Stats on Minorities on TV from 1993-1994

Representation of Women in TV Writing and Film Writing Sectors

Statistics of Women and Minority Representation on UK TV Shows"

Ethnic and Visible Minorities in Entertainment Media

SAG Reports Roles for Minorities and Women Increasing since 2005

SAG Casting Statistic Reports up to 2006

PDF of SCREEN ACTORS GUILD DIVERSITY CASTING REPORT, Including Stats for 2006

I want to share this speech on race that Senator Obama gave in Pennsylvania today, which moved me as I read it during my lunch-break at work. I don't care whether you vote for Obama or not, or even if you are an American. This is interesting and important speech about racism and pretty much states how I feel about racism but have never found the words to express my views.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html?em&ex=1205985600&en=06a539b9d149224f&ei=5087%0A

Here's a snippet - regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright who recently made some incendiary remarks about whites, muslims and race from a black perspective.

"The man (Jeremiah Wright) I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS."

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

"Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love. "

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. "

[As an aside: The problem with typing anything on my lj is no matter what I do, I see typos and grammatical errors...the potential for human error? At least 20% in any given situation. Possibly much higher. No matter how much we try - we can't be perfect. So why do we try, one wonders.]

It's all a question of imagination. Our responsibility begins with the power to imagine. It's just like Yeats said: In dreams begin responsibilities. Flip this around and you could say that where there's no power to imagine. No responsibility can arise.

Quoted from Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami, in a translation by Philip Gabriel.

The quote comes after a passage in which the protagonist, a 15 year old Japanese boy, is contemplating a book on the War Crimes Trial of Eichmann - who was one of the techinicians ordered by Hitler to find a quick and relatively inexpensive method of exterminating over 6 million people (mainly Jews).

But in a larger context - the quote explains a lot. I have to admit that I don't understand the inability to imagine. Because I must have born with it. It is second nature to me. For me it is akin to breathing. Yet, I've met people who don't use their imaginations. Or can't imagine. They can't see the world outside of what they've been told or taught or lectured/overheard. One of my problems with our educational system is so much of it is based on a teacher standing in front of a class and telling them what to think. They lecture for two hours or one hour or three. You take notes. You get an A based on how well you took notes on and understood the lecture. If you were a parrot you'd do very well. (Hmmm, wonder if they've ever run on experiments on that? Probably not, since parrots can't write or fill in those little computerized circles.) A mimic would do quite well too. And they call this teaching? (I want to scream) I call it lecturing. Not quite the same thing. The better teachers and better classes I've had, and they were few and far between, had teachers that liked to discuss things. The classes were smaller. The teacher rarely lectured. Instead the class was spent on discussing the topic, often debating it. The answers? We had none. And the test? It was essay not multiple choice and graded on how well we formed and backed up our argument, our reasoning skills not rote memorization. They wanted to know how we thought and what we thought about something. Research papers would be assigned in lieu of a final "multiple" choice examination. I learned more in those courses and felt that those teachers earned their salaries. I don't remember much from the ones that just required me to sit and listen then take test afterwards. I remember discussing with other law students - how much better law school would have been if they stopped the "lecture/test" courses and focused on getting us apprenticeships or doing legal clinics and writing seminars, having us do the work as opposed to listen to someone lecture to us about it.

Yet, I have to take a step back and remove the huge chip from my shoulder for a moment - while it is fun to blame the educational system, it is not necessarily accurate - there are courses that require rote memorization and require multiple choice tests - math and science being amongst them. And imagination isn't something that is necessarily taught. It may be innate or it may be formed over time? I don't know. I imagine it must be. Could have a lot to do with environment. My parents encouraged it in my brother and I - our family dynamic was more flexible than many of my friends. My parents bought us paper and pencils and crayons, not coloring books. They did not permit us to watch tv at certain times and if it was nice outside? We were forced to go outside and entertain ourselves. They didn't buy us expensive gadgets. And we spent a lot of time reading and being read to, or in lieu of books, my father told me stories, which I later repeated to my younger brother. I look at my friends - who have kids and my brother who does. My friends place their children in front the television and go on about the top rated kids shows - Spongebob, DoddleBops, Sesame Street, etc...while my niece who is only about five months older if that, has never heard of them - instead she makes up stories, draws for hours on end, and sleeps with her books when she isn't being read to, or sounding the words out on her own. And I wonder - if that has something to do with it? Maybe not. I have no children of my own and no clue what I would do with one.

Elsewhere in the book, Kafka on the Shore, the protagonist, Kafka, comments on how passive people are...that making decisions on one's own is hard, and it is easier for someone to tell you what to do. He's discussing a Franz Kafka short story he's read - called The Miner and how it is different from other Franz Kafka stories he's read in that the hero is totally passive. But, he says, "I think in real life people are like that. It's not so easy to make choices on your own."

Is it really that simple? We like to be told what to think, what to do, how to act, what to wear, who to love, who to hate, and given guidelines on all of the above? The friend who recommended this book to me, told me that she wanted to be a baby again, to be taken care of, to not have to make any more decisions or worry about taking care of herself. That's all she and I have to worry about, being single, is ourselves, and we worry that in of itself makes us...well not good people or overly selfish.

I think it may be. Eichman was just one of Hitler's employees, little more than a goon or robot doing his master's will. Sitting in court in Tel Aviv, behind bullet proof glass, Eichmann looked like he couldn't for the life of him figure out why he was being tried, or why the eyes of the world were upon him. He was just a technician, he insisted, who'd found the most efficient solution to the problem assigned him. Wasn't he doing just what any good bureaucrat would do? So why was he being singled out and accused?

Then I read ...Time Out New York:The Race Issue this week - scanned it really, one does not really read Time Out. What caught my attention was a section entitled Does Race Matter? - We asked New Yorkers of all ages and ethnicities. Turns out we can't all just get along. Now, New York may well be the most racially diverse city on the planet, with 12 million, and just about every language, ethnicity, and race accounted for. So, you'd think it would be a little less racist than everywhere else? Not so much. Just different.

Here's a few snippets. Actually I've decided to make a game - play around with people's assumptions. Match the person to the quote (Oh frigging heck - I thought I'd deleted that last line, I shudder to think of some of the snarky responses I got regarding that. Sorry.):

1. Ailene, 30 years of age, "Pacific Islander"
A black President? I fee the same way about a woman president. If they're just as qualified, if our country's ready, that's the point. But I don't think we're ready. That's why I'm like, God, can we get a white male Democrat so we can have a Democrat in office?

2. Frank,32 - Ice Cream Man, Long Island, Italian-American
A black President? I'm not being racist about it, but we need a white guy. Why? Because, yo, they seem to know how to get the job done. I mean, look at Newark - Iraq got more sense than Newark.

3. Karen, 50, Accessories salesperson, East Harlem "Black American"
Race matters because of all the social-economic issues that are going on in the city. I have to buy from Koreans, Koreans have to rent from Jews, Jews are charging crazy rent, and the Koreans are charging crazy prices -so my profit goes down!

4. John, 52, Unemployed, Elizabeth, NJ -"Caucasion"
To me, at age 52, I've learned over the years that race is less and less significant. But the n-word is disgusting. I despise it completely. I see kids today on the subway and they use it to identify with one another, and the word - it's just beneath even the worst person on this earth.

5. Theresa, 41, Teacher, East Elmhurst Queens. "Human"
To me, race doesn't matter. But it does to most people. My landlord asked me to move out, saying that the people I bring home 'bring down the neighborhood.' I bring one person hom - my boyfriend - he's African-American. My name is a Hispanic name, but I look white. When we walk down the street, the white men give him dirty looks, and the black women give me dirty looks. It's upsetting.

6. Alina, 32, Medical Assistant, Bronx - Black
Yes, it's the elephant in the room, still, when it comes to black and white. It's said that race doesn't matter, but it does. Light-skinned blacks have more opportunities than dark-skinned blacks, Puerto Ricans think that they're better than Mexicans. Race does matter. Whether you're a good Muslim or a bad Muslim, you're going to be perceived as threat.

7. Alaina, 27, Insurance Agent, Brooklyn, "Black"
I can pass for multiple things. I have black, white and Native American blood. When I was at school in Florida, I got called a nigger. And when I went to school here, where the majority was black, I got called a cracker. So I experienced both, on both sides. So yeah, racism still exists. And honestly, if I was sitting next to an Arab on a plane, I would be nervous. I hate to say it, but I would.

8. Sarah, 21, Personal assistant, Midtown East, "I don't put myself in a category"
I'm from Sweden, and people's opinons have changed since 9/11; people are more afraid. You're influenced by everything you hear. I try not to, but of course you do, even when you think you don't."

At work, I'm more and more aware of the racial divide. We have a racially diverse workplace, but the people in power are white, male, and mainly Jewish. The top echelon? All white, male, and Jewish. (Which makes sense considering it's a company run by Israelis). My father's workplace was the same way. In fact, there was a joke they told around his workplace - "If you want to become partner - you might want to convert to Judaism." We went around the room this week to count languages - 22 languages for about 15 people. When I climb into the elevator to go home - I see it there as well - the power divide. White, male.

One of my work colleagues from India and Sikh - he wears turbans, as a means of showing his respect to God. The turbans are quite lovely by the way - he has purple, blue, turquoise, green, brown, beige, red, and black that I've seen so far. He's more fashion conscious than I am (which come to think of it, isn't that hard.) At any rate, when we'd gone to a company party at a local bar two weeks ago - a white guy and a black guy sitting at the bar, looked at my colleague and said - "Here comes the Taliban." T (who is black) and a good friend of my colleague's turned around to these two men and gave them the death glare. Stating, they should know better. And not make abrupt assumptions. T said you should be interested in people, ask them about their culture, engage. Tolerate. And try to understand.

So maybe, I think, it is as simple as that - passivity? It's easier to just judge someone based on what they look like. And we all do want to blend in to some degree. Not be poked fun at. Not have to deal with too much grief. Why else do so many women wear the same flip flops? They can't be that comfortable. To have someone else tell you what to do. Or who to like?

Or then again, maybe it's just a lack of imagination...the inability to imagine or dream what it would be like to be black or white or Indian or Jewish or Catholic or an ethicinity or culture other than our own? The inability to envision what it would feel like to have no food. To be shot at. To journey to the moon. To be a guy or a woman. As a writer - I do it all the time, it's the fun part of writing, to imagine myself as someone else. What it feels like to be short for example instead of tall - the protagonist of my novel is 5'3 for example. To imagine what it is like to be a down on his luck male actor whose become a detective. Or to imagine being a cat.

If you can't imagine...then you can't feel empathy or sympathy for someone else? Dreams tell us so much of what we fear, who we want to be, and what we love or hate. Without dreams - can we imagine? Did Eichmann dream? Makes me re-think that Philip K. Dick novel, in which the cult classic BladeRunner was based, do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep. In that book as in the movie - it was dreams that made you human. The ability to dream. The ability to imagine. And it was Dekkar's ability to do so, that made him realize that the difference between himself and the Androids he was hunting down wasn't so defined.
He felt remorse - because he imagined what it was like for them and in the novel, that he could very well be one of them.

The film Dreamgirls, which is the newest Bill Condon musical based on an old Broadway show, is an interesting if flawed film. For a more thorough critique of its flaws, go read buffyannatator's post on it Here.

The film and the musical that proceeded it are loosely based on the history of the The Supremes - or Diana Ross's all female singing group before she took off and became a solo gig. The film borrows heavily from well-known factoids about Ross's life, such as her relationship with the Jackson Five, here the Campton or Campil Five. And notably, the fact that Ross took over the lead role of The Supremes from Flo Ballard and later or possibly during this period had an affair with Berry Gordon, head of Motown records at the time. Flo Ballard's tale is one of Motown's tragedies and the inspiration for the musical. The musical is not "Diana Ross's" story but rather "Flo's", a realistic Cinderella tale about racism and the power of looks over talent in the music business - which to some degree, and this is a flaw in both the source material and the film, over-simplified to make a point. Reality is never as clear cut as fiction, good guys and bad guys tend to blend together and are less definable. [For another take on Diana Ross, Flo Ballard and the Supremes go Here courtesy of petzipellepingo where Ballard's sister Jenkins speaks on it.]

( Dreamgirls - cut for length and vague spoilers )