I'm currently a little in love with this quote from Senator Cory Booker: "We allow our inability to do everything to undermine our determination to do something." It strikes me as particularly relevant. Between the American election cycle and the EU referendum in the UK, there have been massive calls for "changes" to systems. Not just changes, but the dismantling of whole institutions. Overturning the status quo so completely, though, would lead to fall-out that would be almost entirely unpredictable. I do not propose to know what lies ahead for the UK. I do not propose to know how the outcome of the US presidential election will affect our society.
What I do propose to know is that incremental change is, in many ways, the best way to affect change. Sometimes it is necessary to work within the current system to create the new order. I have two examples in support of my point. The first is abortion access in the United States in the 1970s, but continuing today. The second is the family policies of Bolshevik Russia in the early 1920s.
It has been argued that Roe v. Wade was a massive triumph for abortion rights. Indeed, Roe v. Wade is still a significant topic in modern politics, but, in ruling its that abortion is constitutional, the Supreme Court created a platform but built with no supporting structure. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the Roe decision. And, honestly, I agree. According to this Washington Post article, the "wholesale repudiation of state abortion restrictions went too far, too fast." In addition to being too far, too fast, the decision galvanized the pro-life movement. Further, the Roe decision has been incredibly easy to undermine: between 2010 and 2014, 231 new laws were passed restricting access to abortion. Ginsburg has said Roe was centered on "the doctor's freedom to practice" rather than the ability of women to make the best choices regarding their lives.
So there are two problems here: the equal rights of women to make their own decisions about their lives and the erosion of access to safe, legal abortion. The consequence of both of these has become, over the 46 years since the Supreme Court decision, a lack of access women have to health care--especially women of color, economically disadvantaged women, and women living in rural areas.
New restrictions to abortion access are more difficult to contest. This is not a new problem--systematic oppression is more difficult to combat than overt racism, sexism, heterosexsim, or cisism. Access to safe, legal abortion is important, but the Roe declaration that abortion is constitutional did nothing to provide for the maintenance of that right.
My second example is almost a hundred years old and comes from Bolshevik Russia. I've done a bit of reading on Alexandra Kollontai and her ideas about the family in post-revolution Russia. The capitalist understanding of the family rests on the exploitation of women, and to some extent children. Kollantai wanted the institution of the family to be revolutionized--women would no longer be solely responsible for domestic work or childcare. How this would work in reality is never quite clear. Perhaps Kollantai herself wasn't sure what the new family would look like. In reality, Bolshevik leadership did not rate the family or women's equality as equal in importance to economic matters. (Sure, women were valued members of the proletariat, but they were still expected to do unpaid domestic labor, including childcare.)
The family policies of Revolutionary/Leninist Russia attempted to make life better for women. They relaxed divorce restrictions, legalized abortion, and provided for child support for divorced mothers. In reality, none of these policies worked. Early Soviet Russia had a myriad of problems. This is just one. But it highlights the problems of socialism and communism (and Bolshevism). Do you legislate for the world you believe will come into being through the revolution or do you legislate for the world you have in an effort to accomplish the revolution through governmental change?
Do you legislate for the world you have or the world you want to have?
Why not both?
The challenges facing the United States are indeed many: entrenched racism and sexism, the military-industrial complex, xenophobia and isolationist tendencies, and others. But they are not insurmountable. The first principle that we must agree on is that there is no "Us" and no "Them"--that creating an Other is a danger to us everyone. Advocating for a revolution in the form of a complete governmental overhaul, neglects the stability provided by government and the benefits that come from the system.
Some of you may argue that changing laws does not always work. I agree. But without changing the government from within, any other changes will not last. Changing hearts and minds will not matter if those changes are not in tandem with changing laws.
Some of you may argue that laws and those who enforce them are corrupt. Maybe they are. But getting rid of everything in bulk does no one good for long.
In conclusion, while my ideas and beliefs have become more radical, my understanding of how change is accomplished has become more complicated. Change is like an argument: to work, it must be constructed step by step, so the conclusion is built on a solid foundation. From that foundation we can build a better future.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Sunday, June 26, 2016
#EnoughIsEnough
A while back I wrote about gun violence and the Second Amendment. Much of what I said then I still believe. The 2013 me (when I wrote the first post) was less confident in her opinions, at least on big issues. She also didn't like to make waves. She shied away from conflict. The 2016 me, on the other hand, simply doesn't care. Sometimes you have to be decisive and confident. And, dare I say it, strident. There are issues that are impossible to stay silent on.
To the specific issue of gun violence in America. This is my original post. This is an article about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's views of the Second Amendment from the same general time. It's hard to get actual statistics for a variety of reasons. One of the most absurd of these is the ban on the CDC studying the public health effects of firearms. Gun violence in America is an epidemic. In 2016, 1,600 minors have been casualties of incidents involving guns. There have been 150 mass shootings since the start of 2016.
The massacre in Orlando has sparked something more than the resignation that, in my opinion, most people have felt recently. This massacre was a hate crime against the LBGTQ community and against Latinx people. While I may not be terribly well informed about those two communities, I have friends who are. My entire school cohort is more informed on this than I am--something for which I am grateful, because my understanding is broadened. But, as with any increase in knowledge, the capacity to be saddened increases. I am heartsore for these communities. But I am tired of grieving.
On a more hopeful note, there are some members of Congress who feel the same. And are sick of doing nothing, and so are doing something. Sen. Chris Murphy filibustered last week to get a vote in the Senate on gun control bills. Republican-led Senate leadership held the votes, which failed to pass. The bills related to background checks for internet and gun show gun sales and to baring people on no-fly lists from buying guns. While the latter of these measures is not a great bill, it is something. Thirty-seven senators participated by asking, mostly rhetorical, questions of Sen. Murphy. Some also physically stood with him-- Sen. Cory Booker was referenced in multiple speeches for his support. And, yes, I did watch a few hours on C-Span. (I would have watched more but I had to work.) As Cory Booker said, "We allow our inability to do everything to undermine our determination to do something." Which I think is relevant to most everything in the American political system. It is broken in many regards, which makes many people think that unless we completely change the entire system, there is no point in trying.
The general support for Senator Murphy included the vast majority of Senate Democrats (including Independent Sen. King). Unsurprisingly, Sen. Sanders was absent. His record on matters of gun control is vastly different from the Democrat Party platform. (On a side note, this difference is a large reason why I could not support him in the presidential primaries.) All four senators from Minnesota and Massachusetts showed up. So, even though the bills failed to pass, these senators gave me hope. Thoughts, prayers, and moments of silence are no longer acceptable. Without action, they never have been.
Which leads me to the second event that gave me hope this week. The Democrat sit-in in the House of Representatives, led by Rep. John Lewis. Civil disobedience on the floor of the House of Representatives, led by a leader of the Civil Rights Movement. I had to watch (or follow on Twitter while I was at work). Senator Murphy's filibuster was broadcast on the Senate cameras. The sit-in was broadcast on Periscope and Facebook live, via cell phone, for the most part. The Facebook video was provided by Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas) and the Periscope video by Rep. Scott Peters (California). When the House adjourns, the cameras turn off. Quick thinking and the presence of technology allowed the general public to be informed and support their representatives. When Speaker Ryan decided to resume activity in the House, the cameras turned back on--to chants of "No Bill No Break" (among other things). It was deafening. It was a clear picture of Congress going about its business while Americans shout for something to be done.
As with the filibuster, Rep. Lewis and others wanted votes on increased background checks and no fly, no buy, but also, I think, on a bill that would allow the CDC to research gun violence as a public health concern. There were comments on the futility of the sit-in. After all, the Republicans hold a majority in the House. But there is broad support among the public for universal background checks and bi-partisan support for the bills. However, even if the outcome was certain failure, Speaker Ryan refused to even allow for a debate. And yes, there are ways to override the majority refusing to bring a bill to vote. But still.
Currently in American politics, Democrats are discussing issues and solutions. They are trying to get things done. They are presenting solutions. Maybe not perfect ones. I forget which representative said it, but he discussed the possibility of infringing on civil liberties with the passage of no fly, no buy. But he suggested that if the civil liberties of persons on the no fly list would be infringed upon by restricting their ability to buy a fire arm, perhaps their civil liberties are being infringed upon by being on the no fly list. And, perhaps the government should re-evaluate the criteria for being placed on the no fly list. As Sen. Booker said, we cannot allow our inability to do everything stop our determination to do something.
A minor point here is that universal background checks and similar regulatory measures are supported by a majority of NRA members, but not by the men who run the organization. Men who decide which politicians receive donations from the NRA. One of the roots of the lack of congressional action on gun control is the presence of vast sums of money in politics. However, action must be taken on gun control, regardless of action on money in politics. Although, reforms in campaign finance would help.
A further point on gun regulation: universal background checks and similar measures are just that: regulations. The Second Amendment is for a "well-regulated militia"--setting aside the militia part, we are still left with "well regulated." Allowing anyone to buy a gun on craigslist, no questions asked, is pretty much the opposite of "well-regulated."
If your point is that criminals will still get guns and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, you are wrong. The "good guy with a gun" story is a myth. And just because we can't stop criminals from getting fire arms, doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. Some one who wants to commit murder can still achieve it regardless of increased gun control laws. But maybe it should be more difficult to acquire a weapon.
One last point. Your "right" to bear arms, including what are essentially weapons of mass destruction, ends when it hits the right of everyone else's' right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/15/connecticut_s_chris_murphy_democratic_senators_filibuster_on_gun_control.html
http://www.gq.com/story/elizabeth-warren-and-cory-bookers-speeches-gun-violence-filibuster
My last idea has been influenced by this quote.
To the specific issue of gun violence in America. This is my original post. This is an article about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's views of the Second Amendment from the same general time. It's hard to get actual statistics for a variety of reasons. One of the most absurd of these is the ban on the CDC studying the public health effects of firearms. Gun violence in America is an epidemic. In 2016, 1,600 minors have been casualties of incidents involving guns. There have been 150 mass shootings since the start of 2016.
The massacre in Orlando has sparked something more than the resignation that, in my opinion, most people have felt recently. This massacre was a hate crime against the LBGTQ community and against Latinx people. While I may not be terribly well informed about those two communities, I have friends who are. My entire school cohort is more informed on this than I am--something for which I am grateful, because my understanding is broadened. But, as with any increase in knowledge, the capacity to be saddened increases. I am heartsore for these communities. But I am tired of grieving.
On a more hopeful note, there are some members of Congress who feel the same. And are sick of doing nothing, and so are doing something. Sen. Chris Murphy filibustered last week to get a vote in the Senate on gun control bills. Republican-led Senate leadership held the votes, which failed to pass. The bills related to background checks for internet and gun show gun sales and to baring people on no-fly lists from buying guns. While the latter of these measures is not a great bill, it is something. Thirty-seven senators participated by asking, mostly rhetorical, questions of Sen. Murphy. Some also physically stood with him-- Sen. Cory Booker was referenced in multiple speeches for his support. And, yes, I did watch a few hours on C-Span. (I would have watched more but I had to work.) As Cory Booker said, "We allow our inability to do everything to undermine our determination to do something." Which I think is relevant to most everything in the American political system. It is broken in many regards, which makes many people think that unless we completely change the entire system, there is no point in trying.
The general support for Senator Murphy included the vast majority of Senate Democrats (including Independent Sen. King). Unsurprisingly, Sen. Sanders was absent. His record on matters of gun control is vastly different from the Democrat Party platform. (On a side note, this difference is a large reason why I could not support him in the presidential primaries.) All four senators from Minnesota and Massachusetts showed up. So, even though the bills failed to pass, these senators gave me hope. Thoughts, prayers, and moments of silence are no longer acceptable. Without action, they never have been.
Which leads me to the second event that gave me hope this week. The Democrat sit-in in the House of Representatives, led by Rep. John Lewis. Civil disobedience on the floor of the House of Representatives, led by a leader of the Civil Rights Movement. I had to watch (or follow on Twitter while I was at work). Senator Murphy's filibuster was broadcast on the Senate cameras. The sit-in was broadcast on Periscope and Facebook live, via cell phone, for the most part. The Facebook video was provided by Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas) and the Periscope video by Rep. Scott Peters (California). When the House adjourns, the cameras turn off. Quick thinking and the presence of technology allowed the general public to be informed and support their representatives. When Speaker Ryan decided to resume activity in the House, the cameras turned back on--to chants of "No Bill No Break" (among other things). It was deafening. It was a clear picture of Congress going about its business while Americans shout for something to be done.
As with the filibuster, Rep. Lewis and others wanted votes on increased background checks and no fly, no buy, but also, I think, on a bill that would allow the CDC to research gun violence as a public health concern. There were comments on the futility of the sit-in. After all, the Republicans hold a majority in the House. But there is broad support among the public for universal background checks and bi-partisan support for the bills. However, even if the outcome was certain failure, Speaker Ryan refused to even allow for a debate. And yes, there are ways to override the majority refusing to bring a bill to vote. But still.
Currently in American politics, Democrats are discussing issues and solutions. They are trying to get things done. They are presenting solutions. Maybe not perfect ones. I forget which representative said it, but he discussed the possibility of infringing on civil liberties with the passage of no fly, no buy. But he suggested that if the civil liberties of persons on the no fly list would be infringed upon by restricting their ability to buy a fire arm, perhaps their civil liberties are being infringed upon by being on the no fly list. And, perhaps the government should re-evaluate the criteria for being placed on the no fly list. As Sen. Booker said, we cannot allow our inability to do everything stop our determination to do something.
A minor point here is that universal background checks and similar regulatory measures are supported by a majority of NRA members, but not by the men who run the organization. Men who decide which politicians receive donations from the NRA. One of the roots of the lack of congressional action on gun control is the presence of vast sums of money in politics. However, action must be taken on gun control, regardless of action on money in politics. Although, reforms in campaign finance would help.
A further point on gun regulation: universal background checks and similar measures are just that: regulations. The Second Amendment is for a "well-regulated militia"--setting aside the militia part, we are still left with "well regulated." Allowing anyone to buy a gun on craigslist, no questions asked, is pretty much the opposite of "well-regulated."
If your point is that criminals will still get guns and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, you are wrong. The "good guy with a gun" story is a myth. And just because we can't stop criminals from getting fire arms, doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. Some one who wants to commit murder can still achieve it regardless of increased gun control laws. But maybe it should be more difficult to acquire a weapon.
One last point. Your "right" to bear arms, including what are essentially weapons of mass destruction, ends when it hits the right of everyone else's' right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/15/connecticut_s_chris_murphy_democratic_senators_filibuster_on_gun_control.html
http://www.gq.com/story/elizabeth-warren-and-cory-bookers-speeches-gun-violence-filibuster
My last idea has been influenced by this quote.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Update and Such
Hello all. I know I've been lax in writing recently, but life has been busy and rather monotonous. However, I find myself with a little time this weekend so I'm going to write a few posts. This first one will simply be an update. I might make a separate picture update, but as I load a lot of pics to twitter and instagram, and I'm not sure where my card reader is, I might not.
My school year ended well. I'm looking forward to the next year. I applied for a funded research seminar for my thesis and got it. My thesis is going to be about the gaps in modern feminism, specifically relating socialist feminist thought and historical figures. I want to look at actual historical women, how their ideas were erased from second wave feminism and how that erasure continues to impact third wave and modern feminism. It's a big project, but I have a start on it because I wrote my history paper on the general topic. I'm also quite excited for it.
This summer I am working a lot. Not only am I working as a barista, which I generally enjoy, but also I am doing research with a friend/my roommate for a faculty member at Simmons for a new edition of a textbook. Both of these will continue in the fall.
The last part of this update is a bit of a disclaimer. My next few posts will likely be about politics or current events. I know some of you will disagree with me, and I'm willing to discuss differences civilly. But, for some of these topics, I don't care about some opinions and I am in no way obligated to listen. And on some level, I just don't care.
Courtesy of: https://xkcd.com/1357/
My school year ended well. I'm looking forward to the next year. I applied for a funded research seminar for my thesis and got it. My thesis is going to be about the gaps in modern feminism, specifically relating socialist feminist thought and historical figures. I want to look at actual historical women, how their ideas were erased from second wave feminism and how that erasure continues to impact third wave and modern feminism. It's a big project, but I have a start on it because I wrote my history paper on the general topic. I'm also quite excited for it.
This summer I am working a lot. Not only am I working as a barista, which I generally enjoy, but also I am doing research with a friend/my roommate for a faculty member at Simmons for a new edition of a textbook. Both of these will continue in the fall.
The last part of this update is a bit of a disclaimer. My next few posts will likely be about politics or current events. I know some of you will disagree with me, and I'm willing to discuss differences civilly. But, for some of these topics, I don't care about some opinions and I am in no way obligated to listen. And on some level, I just don't care.
Courtesy of: https://xkcd.com/1357/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)