Archive for the ‘social justice blog’ Category

Rump Roast

February 24, 2017

He wants so hard to be Reagan,
but actually he’s more like Nixon
He’s causing more problems
than what he’s supposed to be fixin’

Truth-telling is great, cutting through the crap
but I hear more lies than truth coming out of that trap

He goes on the attack when approached with real facts
Crying to deflect from his lying is a tired act

I have no doubt he wants to fix bad situations,
but wrong-headed moves make us the butt of all nations

Ego + paranoia run unchecked =  a volatile cocktail
He has to subdue those natural impulses or he will surely fail

Is anyone telling him about himself?
Does anyone have his ear?
Or does having a pompous attitude
make it far too heard to hear?

He is supposed to work with industry, communities,
and educators to make improvements
Not give the reins to big business and vengeful politicians,
and misguided hope to hate movements

We need high-quality, vocational education
and more funds to make our public schools great
not destruction of a great, democratic institution
with vouchers that further segregate

He needs to upgrade our failing infrastructure
without causing neighborhoods to rot
Railroads and highways killed vital communities
separating the haves from the have nots

How about to lower the crime rates and
proliferation of illegal guns and drugs
he investigates how the crap gets here–
the corruption and bribery by the real thugs?

If I could have his ear for a minute I would say
the following because, no, it hasn’t gone away:

Be the big man you say you are, and not the wussy,
nasty little boy that you’re acting like
Own up to your comments, apologize for the p*ssy
reference and misogynist diatribe

No, wait, he should go much further: He should acknowledge that
he’s got a sexist attitude he’s working hard to correct

He’s caving into his paranoia
and his myriad obsessions
He needs to forget his war with the media
hasn’t he learned any lessons?

He should put his nose to the grindstone
and open up his ears
He said the people are in charge,
but it’s really all his fears

Because of his divisiveness from the start
he doesn’t get cut a break
He gets relentlessly parodied as art
whenever he makes a mistake

He’s the ringmaster of his own circus–
or is he the clown?
I wish he’d be professional instead of
jerking us around

While the sideshow continues
I offer you a toast
What kind of whine goes well
with an undercooked rump roast?


Patience: Do You Know Where You Want to Go?

March 4, 2011

The adage patience is a virtue has been around for a very long time, but it’s no less true today. How about good things come to those who wait? Well, if wait means sit around and accept abuses of power, make juvenile jokes but do nothing to improve the way things are, pretend that you don’t care about anything, or buy into the mindset that success is monetary and comes to individuals solely because of their own hard work, then the good things will never come to the people waiting. If, however, wait is akin to patience, then waiting for those you trust to help make inroads into addressing some of the more pressing ills in society (rather than bashing them for not going quickly enough) should surely lead to some positive gains.

The U.S. political system is in sad shape, not because of an inherent flaw but because of how we’ve come to define political success and how folks elected to represent us have come to care more about the power we’ve entrusted them with than actually representing our interests; because the masses have failed to articulate our mutual interests and provide a solid timetable for getting them met.

There are a myriad of reasons why people run for public office. Some do it out of some inherited sense that they must protect the masses from themselves. They see political office as a birthright, and while they may never say it, truly believe that their aristocratic heritage has come with the patriarchal burden of leading the less privileged. They think the average person is ill-equipped (due to a lack of so-called cultured experiences and, (gasp) inferior breeding—yes, I said what many think) to run the government (at least on a federal level), to even be able to intelligently identify and articulate her/his needs. It was this elitist thinking that prevented our forefathers from establishing a true democracy, after all. A representative democracy was deemed safer. It’s why the popular vote doesn’t actually directly determine who wins the presidency. You know this. You learned it at some point in your life.

Others run for office because they want to win at the highest levels. Perhaps they were captains of the cheerleading squad or football teams. Maybe they were all-county in tennis in the country club circuit. They led their prep squad to an undefeated season in lacrosse, golf, basketball, baseball. They left behind a legacy of winning when they graduated from the rugby, cricket, or squash club they helped form as undergrads. They were always used to competing and winning and, dammit, they are going to win in politics too. Maybe they’ve never really given thought to what happens after they secure the “victory” of getting elected. The victory, you see, is in getting elected, not what happens afterward.

Conversely, sometimes the perennial loser seeks political office. The mindset isn’t much different from the über-competitive winner. The difference is that they weren’t actually the captains of anything the social circles to which they aspired deemed worthy enough. For some reason the Insect Club in high school didn’t carry the same cachet as athletics, band, or even the debate club. So what’s a competitive person who hasn’t gained the social recognition he or she desires throughout childhood or adolescence to do? Why, pledge to a prestigious fraternity or sorority! Lead the Junior Insert-the-Political-Party’s! Go to law school! Run for political office! Not a loser now, am I? Gee, Mr. or Ms. Office Holder, what’ll you do now that you’re in office? Why, run for a higher office, Dear Child.

Lest you’ve become even more jaded reading this, let me remind you that there are those that run for office to truly address societal ills. Of course there are those, misguided, who define ills in the same way human rights groups define justice. But there are many who truly want to secure rights and gains for those for whom these things have been historically denied. Some of these individuals survive in office, never wavering from this goal. Their constituents may or may not reward them with re-election, but they typically remain unnoticed in the national spotlight. (With how many Congressmen and Congresswomen are you familiar?) These individuals have patience but are not sitting on their laurels waiting for good things to happen. Their loyal constituents practice patience, going again and again to the polls to make sure they stay in office. They are active, not passive. They don’t assume these people will get re-elected on their own. They don’t cry that these elected officials are not doing enough and then sit at home whining when somebody else wins and puts in place an agenda that will set social progress back decades.

A lot of criticism has been heaped on President Obama. He was criticized on the campaign trail, but enough people went out to the polls because they were inspired by his message and finally decided the country was seeping too far into economic ruin and socio-political despair. Many of these same individuals were not so inspired by John Kerry and, therefore, chose to grumble and suffer through four additional years of monetary disaster rather than vote to at least get out of office what they knew to not be working. So, they placed years of hope and dreams into the candidacy of one man.

And now, many are expressing frustration. They are disgruntled. They mock the name they once promoted. Why? Perhaps because they are not patient. Perhaps they practice the motto of “Get all now or get nothing.” This attitude might be something to applaud if it were followed up with action. In the mid-term elections it was followed up with inaction by most, action by a few—many of those with ideas long considered to be on the fringe. Well, tip your hats to them. They did not put up and shut up. They wanted change and elected people to go get it for them. You know, people who want slavery removed from history books, people who wanted to more narrowly define rape in a misguided attempt to rein in federal spending for abortions.

Let’s for a minute take a look at what the Obama Administration has accomplished:

  • Healthcare reform—It’s not perfect, but it’s a whole lot better than letting wealthy insurance companies and medical professionals run roughshod over everybody else; once a good deal of government waste is mopped up, our system will smell a whole lot better and be more efficient and cost-effective. Our other recent presidents were either too fearful to address this or too comfortable to even see a problem. But let’s blame this Administration for fringing on our liberties. Okay. For not doing enough, when nothing was being done before. ‘Kay, let’s.
  • Taking some well-aimed swings at Wall Street—Okay, no home runs yet, but it’s refreshing to see the hacks. If more Americans would start to hold corporate America accountable the government would follow suit.
  • End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—Sorry it didn’t happen on your timetable, those of you who have been the most vocal since Obama took office. I’m sorry, I must have gotten a new hearing aid. I didn’t hear your loud voices during the Clinton or Walker Bush Administrations. Those who have been working to get this absurd policy thrown out for years are celebrating the victory, while the Johnny-Come-Lately’s, the I Didn’t Speak Up Before’s, are sour that it took so long.
  • Major reduction of troops in Iraq and some serious improvements there—Yes, this has been tempered by increases in Afghanistan, but the man ran on that platform to get troops out of Iraq in a militarily safe and intelligent manner and to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. This wasn’t something he pulled out of his hindquarters once he took office. Were you listening before you voted?
  • Administration’s acknowledgment that the federal government has no right to define marriage and conclusion that the provision in the Defense of Marriage Act (implemented under President Clinton, I’ll remind you) that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman is unconstitutional—no, this hasn’t actually led to a repeal but it was a major announcement, paving the way for a challenge to the law that federal prosecutors will no longer defend.
  • Signs that the economy is improving—Let’s not get this twisted, Obama came into office long after we fell into an economic cesspool of unemployment. The disparity between rich and poor was never higher than in the past decade. So, let’s blame Obama for not snapping his fingers and making things right. Right. Right? The much-ridiculed stimulus bill and bailout of Detroit have led to some improvements. Let’s investigate ways to go farther.

The Obama Administration has had some fumbles and foibles. It has been slow to address some issues and hasn’t gone as far in addressing others, as what might have been hoped, but I’d rather have them addressed at some point and to some degree than not addressed at all. This President hasn’t sounded as cocksure and definitive as President G.W. Bush (that’s the knock G.H.W. Bush received, as people flocked to the more charismatic W.J. Clinton; on the other hand, H. Clinton was ridiculed for sounding authoritative…), but I’d rather have someone in office willing to challenge himself, than someone seemingly self-righteous and unwilling to question anything. Obama consistently expressed, before he was elected, his personal views of marriage being between a man and a woman, but that hasn’t stopped him from viewing the same definition as unconstitutional when authorized by federal law.

When the 2012 campaign gets underway, I’m curious to see if patience wins out over impatience. Will people who haven’t been patient enough sit back and watch people with whom they fundamentally disagree get into office? Will patient people re-elect a man who has been making some progress towards social justice? Will patient people put money, support, and their words of encouragement behind candidates who want to go further with reform that will benefit the most disadvantaged in society? Will impatience lead to rash support of a party that has no clear definition of what it is or a party that is very clear about what it is (and it’s not about the less privileged?) Or will it result in blind loyalty to a party that says it’s about the less privileged but has often portrayed a weakness and unwillingness (lack of desire?) to challenge the status quo when actually given a shot at prominence?

If you want to see the U.S. government acknowledge the biases inherent in our institutions and the inefficiency and oppressive nature of many long-supported policies, if you want to see the government implement sound policies that will curb the abuses of corporations and politicians who are more interested in dollar signs than human beings, work actively to find and back people that want the same things and have the courage and support to create and push through major legislation that will get us going on the path to justice at a workable, brisk pace. Cracking jokes, coming up with juvenile names to call political figures or parties, whining about your problems, none of these things are going to get you where you want to go—unless you don’t want to go anywhere. Educate yourself and find out where you want to go or have you been convinced that there is nowhere to go?

Human rights abuses continue in Darfur.

February 5, 2011

Human rights abuses continue in #Darfur.

Narrowing the Definition of Rape

February 4, 2011

Rather than punishing companies for allowing abortions to be covered by insurance or narrowing the definition of rape to further restrict who can and cannot get abortions, we should spend time and money educating youth about sex, their bodies, and responsibility. Preventing unwanted pregnancies, rather than ending unwanted pregnancies, is the key. In the case of rape (by the broadest of definitions) no female should be prevented from legally ending a pregnancy that results from such a heinous crime.

New Jersey Republican Chris Smith’s “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” or H.R. 3, is a bill that would ban the use of taxpayer subsidies for abortions for any pregnancies not resulting from life-threatening illnesses or “forcible” rape. The distinction between what would constitute “forcible” rape (as opposed to what–non-forcible rape?) is what has many people concerned that the legislation will create a narrow definition of rape, which would have powerful ramifications.

Genius of Oppression

February 14, 2010

I’ll support you
as you oppress.
Social justice,
I protest.
Why can’t I
that because of
your greediness
I’ve no pot in
which to piss?
Damn, you’re a

Genius of Oppression Shirt shirt
Genius of Oppression Shirt by socialjusticeink