Kick ’em all out

Imagine if you owned a building. Let’s say it’s the largest and best building and everyone wanted to gather there to meet with friends and organize groups. Let’s say it’s such a fantastic building that no other buildings can rival it.

Now imagine that in one of the rooms of the building a group regularly got together to exchange the most hateful ideas. Then one day you turn on the news. That same group is on the television attacking the legislative branch of the United States. It is destroying government property and committing acts of terror. The group chanted to execute the Vice President of the United States.

Five people died. It could have been worse. Greater crimes had been planned but fortunately were averted.

You make the decision to ban that group from ever meeting in your building again. You’re horrified that it was in this building the planning unfolded to unleash pure chaos and even murder. Your building was a central location to nurture the ideas that then became actualized.

Because your building is the biggest and it’s used by so many should you be disallowed from banning said group? Of course not.

Let’s imagine a media outlet spent days criticizing you for not allowing the group to meet at your building. That this decision somehow violated their right to meet. Let’s say this media outlet focused not on the murder and criminality resulting from the meetings but the “wrongness” of kicking out the group to discuss their vitriol and plan further violence.

The buildings are, you guessed it, Facebook and Twitter. The media outlet is Fox.

The events that unfolded at the capital were long in the making. They were based on ideas shared and expressed on the platforms Facebook and Twitter. They have every right to no longer offer their virtual space as a meeting ground.

As for Fox “news,” it is disgusting that their focus is on the power of these platforms as opposed to the violence and loss of life and attack on the very foundation of democracy. They refuse to examine the causal factors of January 6th (for example, Trump’s idiotic rhetoric of fighting to get your country back). It’s perhaps because they’d be guilty of being part of that causal factor, of openly spreading disinformation about the election, and allowing their audience to believe the election was stolen. Or, of allowing their audience to believe that a Biden/Harris administration is the death of freedom and the gateway to socialism.

I’m so completely sickened by the images of January 6th. I’m scared that I share a country with people who invest in white supremacy and have found a hobby in terror. The education in this country is meant to imbibe us with good citizens, not foster horrific notions that ultimately manifest in violence. Media literacy is desperately needed. Basic logic skills are desperately needed. Then let’s move on to literature and culture and open up the avenue of empathy and appreciation for the different viewpoints of Americans.

But first, we cannot forget that “free speech” is not absolute by a government and it is not bestowed by a company. A business cannot take away free speech.

Be mindful of the ideas you see exchanged and interrupt racism and misinformation when you can. That, I believe, is the justice one can offer in the aftermath of January 6th.

Literature as Reflection

The latest podcast episode was something quite special.  It was a conversation with a lawyer, an activist, a philosopher, and an English teacher.  The topic flowed from the role of race and culture in the classroom, to the dynamics of Los Angeles, to the way in which literature ushers in discussions about society.

Do you have a favorite dystopian novel?  We take a look at how that genre in particular allows for reflection.  We then reviewed part 1 of The Raffle, by Randy Smith.  I highly recommend this read, and after listening to the show you’ll want a copy.  Feel free to leave your thoughts here in the comment section or email GoodIsInTheDetailsPod@gmail.com

It was a joy to be part of this, to produce it, and to now have the opportunity to share it.  For my fellow educators and bookworms, I think you’ll find a lot here.

Gwendolyn · The Crossroads of Literature and Politics

 

Private Conversations on Race

In the late 90s I had the opportunity to attend a lecture given by Maya Angelou.  I remember the packed room and the hush befalling the audience the moment she stepped to the microphone.  No one dared utter a sound or disturb the experience.  Her brilliance filled the very air we breathed.  It was undeniable.  We were in the presence of history.

“I will not stay in a room where there is a racist joke or word,” she said at one point.  That stuck with me.  Silence is agreement.  Silence is participation.  She closed her lecture with reciting Phenomenal Woman and I felt complete.

In the last few days I’ve had conversations with two of my friends (all of us are white) about painful confrontations with someone close to us regarding racism.  We shared nearly identical stories with the following theme: explaining to the person close to us that they held a racist position/opinion only to be met with denial, anger, defensiveness, and a terrible misunderstanding of the essence of racism.

All of us were emotionally drained and wished desperately that the outcome had been different.

No minds were changed.  No one will know of the exchanges.  Was it important?

I think the answer is yes.  At the heart of the misunderstanding was the assumption that racism consisted only of outward violence or use of derogatory language.  But that is far too narrow a definition.  Racism can be embedded far deeper.

I heard a clip from Tucker Carlson’s show where he described Black Lives Matter in the following terms: mob, riots, thugs, looters.  He then claimed that saying “all lives matter” is Christian and can even be found in the Constitution (“All men are created equal”).  It was an outrageous misreading of what “all men” meant when the document was written.   A simple glance and knowledge of history can illuminate that the “white” is presupposed here, and that women were not included and a slave was 3/5 a person.  Carlson’s attempt to justify his resistance to Black Lives Matter actually pointed us to the reason the movement exists, namely, because not all lives have mattered.

But back to my thoughts that the private conversations are worth the painful confrontation…

Yes.  It is important to interrupt racism wherever we find it, even when it is close. It clarifies one’s mind and there is always the hope that the words will sink in once the defensive attitude has time to dissipate from the interlocutor.  It is important, as Maya Angelou noted, to let others see you will not be present for racism.

It is also an act of love.  Holding a belief that all people are the same, and in a negative sense in particular, disempowers one’s ability to flourish in an authentic way as though the color of their skin were a virtue and the color of others is a vice.

Private conversations are another way to be an ally even if the end result doesn’t yield what you’d hoped.  It doesn’t come with a hashtag or a sign but it is valuable.

 

 

Podcast in the time of Coronavirus

I’m of two minds with respect to the social distancing:

1. It’s a joy to see the budding creativity in times of boredom.
2. A sense of anger over the delayed and general mismanaged response to the pandemic.  Perhaps the most upsetting for me is learning that because of the contagiousness of the virus people admitted to hospital with it cannot have visitors. Ultimately people are dying alone.

How is it possible to hold both 1 & 2 in my mind and heart?  Maybe it’s the unfolding of tragedy and comedy?  We are all feeling terribly human at the moment, aren’t we? Stay safe, wash your hands, and check in on your friends and family.

An FBI agent, a Lawyer, and a Philosopher Walk into a Podcast

What does a former FBI agent turned law enforcement analyst have to say about Justice, Confirmation bias, and Conspiracy Theories? Check out this 2 part interview with Jeff Cortese and my guest co-host, Rudy Salo.

Improbable logic

I have no idea how this impeachment will unfold, but I have noticed conservative pundits and politicians banking on a few things that, regardless of the problematic logic, just might work in their favor.

1. Most Americans don’t know where Ukraine is on a map. This was spouted by Fox Five host Jesse Waters. While it is an irrelevant claim, it might resonate with viewers and voters.
2. Quid Pro Quo is done all the time. This is true; however, context matters. If I were to say: “I was driving and people do that all the time! Can you believe I was stopped?” And if one were to ask why I was stopped and I responded that I ran a red light, well, that information alters the banality of the notion that driving is done all the time. Moreover, to refer to point number 1, if I were to say it happened in Sierra Madre and no one knows where that is on a map, it would be irrelevant.
3. The Democrats have wanted Trump out of office since the beginning. This is true. Again, it does not follow that because it is true the president did nothing wrong. They are two different claims.
4. This is Russia hoax all over again. They (Right) are counting on people not having read or being familiar with the Mueller Report. And it might work to create this narrative. Anyone who had read the report (which is available for all and free of charge) would know that there were about 10 examples of obstruction and that Mueller said the president was not exonerated. In addition, the Department of Justice rules state that a sitting president cannot be indicted. There were over 30 indictments as a result of the investigation. Hardly a “hoax.”
5. The Ukraine president did not know of a problem. This assumes that the president of Ukraine is on equal footing with the president of the United States. They (Right) expect viewers/voters to not know the history of Ukraine or this vulnerable and new presidency. On another note, being unaware of being a victim of a crime does not mean a crime did not happen. This is how pickpockets function.
6. The notion of expertise is reduced to “someone’s opinion.” (Note Senator Kennedy of Fox News Sunday.) I suggest you read the book “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters,” by Tom Nichols. The weight of opinion hinges on one’s background and experience. They (Right) are hoping people assume all opinions are equal.
7. This is a coup! They (Right) expect this language to not be checked. There is a difference between a violent overthrow (coup) and an impeachment (democratic process).
8. The Whistleblower and people who have testified are “Never-Trumpers.” Even if that were true, and it could be, it does not follow the president did nothing wrong. Back to my running a red light example: if I were to say the officer writing my ticket hated his philosophy class, would that mean I shouldn’t get the ticket?
9. Trump has allowed for more aid to Ukraine than Obama. Irrelevant to the crime.
10. Trump was after corruption! To begin, Trump’s history in no way reflects an interest in corruption. Trump University, Foundation, lawyer and campaign manager in prison, his current lawyer might be in serious criminal trouble…the list goes on. Back to my red light example: “But officer, I was chasing the car in front of me and I think the person is someone who should be investigated…I heard.” Still irrelevant. If asked why I didn’t notify law enforcement of my suspicion (because, after all isn’t that who should be doing the chasing?) and I responded, “They’re all corrupt!” it would not mean I had not run the red light. This is essentially Trump’s view of Hunter Biden (the car in front of me) and the FBI (the people who should be doing the chasing). They (Right) are hoping no one notices the recycled campaign tactic of calling the political opponent corrupt, crooked, and someone who should be in jail.

On Love, Same-sex Relationships, and Christianity

Drinking with Socrates podcast featured an interview with Reverend Elizabeth McQuitty! Click here for SoundCloud. We’re also on iTunes.

We discuss faith, love, and tackle the question on the compatibility of same-sex relationships in the context of religion.  This was an absolute delight to record and I hope you enjoy the show!

Instagram: @gdol10 @mikeracanelli @Socratespod

In Another’s Shoes

If you are terrified of a caravan of people 1,000 miles away trekking north then I propose a challenge.  Go for a ten mile walk today and reflect on how/why your family came to the United States.  How is your life possible because of your family’s decision?  When you end your walk and your feet ache take a moment to be grateful.

And if you think But I don’t have time to do a ten mile walk!  I have duties at home, laundry to tend to, meals to prepare, Netflix to binge, catch up with work, plans with my family and my friends!

Well, then…let that sink in.

A Homework Assignment

For my Philosophy 340 class, Current Debates in Sexuality, (also sometimes called Philosophy of Sex and Love), I gave the following assignment:

Find an article that has been written in the last two weeks with a reference/discussion about sexual assault.  Bring this to class.  I clarified that they needn’t agree with the article because the point was to examine how sexual assault is being presented in media.

Come class time the students had their articles, and I put them into groups of 3 and 4 to share with each other the content of the articles.  The room immediately roared to life with their exchanges.

It turned out to be a good exercise.  In terms of teaching methodology I enjoy when textbook theory can be highlighted and demonstrated in either fiction/film or current events. I don’t want my students to merely memorize an argument or a few definitions for the semester.  Engagement and discussion is key to making material from courses one’s own.

I must confess, I was surprised that out of 40 students no one brought the same article.

 

Kavanaugh Testimony

• The way in which the senate decides to proceed will speak volumes about the way in which sexual assault is viewed.  Rushing through the process will leave a mark, an echo, a haunting message that sexual assault is nothing to hold up a supreme court justice nomination.  What would?  A “real crime”?
• Kavanaugh’s dismissive attitude regarding an investigation is problematic.  (He argues he’s already been through several over his career; yet, as a justice knows that new information does mean new investigations are in order). A one week investigation is hardly a lot to consider when the appointment in question is for a lifetime position.
• Of course the FBI does not provide conclusions.  This is why it is not called the Federal Bureau of Conclusions.  It provides evidence, an investigation, so that conclusions may be drawn.
• The Dems may have made a political play by waiting to reveal the allegation.  (Note I write may have.)  If that is the case then it is a matter of politics and politics only.  It in no way means the allegations are false (nor does it mean they are true).  Thus the reference to the timing of bringing forth these allegations is for the senators to bicker about over their next golf game and not for discerning the veracity of the claim(s).
• The yearbook is relevant considering the context.  No, not everyone up for an important political/judicial position needs their yearbook discussed.  But, in this case, the yearbook yields character information in the timeframe of the allegations.
• The timing in which a person makes a claim about an event or crime in no way means said event or crime did not take place.  It is irrelevant.  Moreover, with the case of sexual assault it is quite common for reporting to take place at a later date.  This was accepted with the case of victims in the Catholic Church.  Why is it less understood for young women?
• The heavy drinking by Kavanaugh might point to an inebriated state in which he committed these acts, does not recall, and therefore does not feel responsible (or has no memory at all).  He denies this as a possibility.
• The fact that Kavanaugh studied hard in high school and college does not mean sexual assault did not occur.  The fact that he has women friends also does not mean that sexual assault did not occur.
• Kavanaugh may be innocent of these allegations.  If that is the case then he (and all of us) have every right to be infuriated by the injustice.
• If Kavanaugh did commit sexual assault then the fact that he was young is irrelevant.  (Swap out sexual assault for another crime here or imagine he was not white.  Does changing those variables change the weight of responsibility?)
• If Kavanaugh did these crimes and it is rationalized that boys will be boys or in any fashion normal then that is disgusting, terrifying for women, and an insult to men.
• Rumors or unsubstantiated claims are absolutely problematic.  No one deserves to be on the receiving end of that.  This is why a break to investigate seems to be a logical move.  The only potential harm is waiting one week later to vote on his confirmation.
• Kavanaugh’s family has been threatened and abused.  This is wrong.
• Dr. Ford has been threatened and abused.  This is also wrong.
• We are left in a quagmire.  It is in no one’s interest to ignore caution here.  I do know this: to rush this confirmation will mean the senate has failed to seriously address these allegations (thereby suggesting such allegations are of little to no worth) and that will shadow every person who should be heard in the case of assault and it will linger over every decision Kavanaugh makes as a justice (especially in any cases regarding the rights of women).
• Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment section.