Chattin bout Allah
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010 by Matt Bors
Archive for September, 2010
This Week’s Cartoon: “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the Senate”
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010 by Jen Sorensen
In an unsurprising burst of ineffectiveness, the Senate failed to break a conservative filibuster against ending the ban on gays in the military. The Senator in the last panel is loosely modeled on Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who provided the death blow. Collins said she supported a repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” but didn’t like the way the Dems were going about it. As in, they were actually trying to pass something. We all know that is forbidden, of course.
Thirty-six
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010 by Jen SorensenSo I turn 36 today. Normally I don’t mention my birthdays here, but I have a little anecdote about this one. Back in middle school, I remember kids in my art class asking the teacher, Mr. Williams, how old he was. He replied “36.” At the time, it occurred to me that 36 was the quintessential age of adulthood. Not too old, not too young. Just a standard grownup. It’s a rule of thumb that I’ve carried with me through the years.
The thing is, I feel like I’m 26. I can hardly remember what I’ve done over the decade that has apparently elapsed since then. I think I may have drawn some cartoons…
Mailbag Douchebag – Afghanistan Edition!
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010 by Matt BorsIt’s been a while since I’ve posted a Mailbag Douchebag. (My faves are here, here and here.) My leaving for Afghanistan brought overwhelmingly positive e-mail and humbling financial support from readers. But the Douchebags came out of their holes to opine. One reader inquired as to my exact location so he could turn my coordinates over to the Taliban to murder me. A more forgiving critic, Thomas, simply wants me to find gainful employment:
Perhaps you should tryworking for the Taliban and creating some of their anti-Americanleaflets? This would be a good position for you since you obviouslythink that Afghan people and their culture is preferable to that ofthe United States. Go live amongst the Afghan people and spread the anti-Americanism there…
I looked into this while I was overseas. Given the high unemployment level in Afghanistan, however, the Taliban leafleting centers are unwilling to hire an illegal immigrant like myself despite my fluency in English, illustration skills and knowledge of Photoshop.
Speaking of Anti-Americanism, check out the Revolutionary Guard building in Tehran!
In Defense Of The “B” Word
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010 by Barry Deutsch[Crossposted on Family Scholars Blog, Alas, and TADA. Arguments for the legitimacy of discrimination against LGBT people are not allowed on Alas.]
In this post, I am not arguing that opposing same-sex marriage (SSM) is a bigoted policy. I will be arguing that in a forthcoming post; but that’s not my argument today. In this post, I will defend the use of the word “bigotry” in policy debate. That may seem like an odd thing to do, but when I read SSM opponents, I get the overwhelming impression that they believe that the word “bigotry” should never be used in a civil debate.
* * *
Let’s discuss the word “bigotry.” Starting with what I don’t mean.
When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean “you’re a monster.” When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean “you’re a bad person.” When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean “shut up.”
When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean that you feel direct hatred or animus towards anyone. When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean to ask for a lengthy narrative about your many close LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual) friends and the prejudice-free state of your mind. With all due respect, none of that is likely to be relevant in a policy discussion.
When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean “I’m a better human being than you.” Everyone has some bigotry in them, me included.
* * *
So what does “bigotry” mean? In his post on “The B Word,” David Blankenhorn wrote:
…there is a lot of genuine anti-gay bigotry out there, including within the movement to oppose gay marriage. By anti-gay bigotry, I mean the expressed belief that homosexuals deserve our contempt and are the fair objects of ridicule. It’s there, and it helps to fuel opposition to gay marriage. I wish this weren’t true, but it is, and I don’t think that this fact is disputable on an empirical basis. So while I certainly don’t like being called a bigot, I suspect that many gay advocates of same-sex marriage have been called names at least as ugly as “bigot” far more times than I have ever or will ever be called ”bigot.”
The second thing is that the tactic works. It ends conversation. It divides the world into the decent people and the evil people, and in that way silences most anyone with a dissenting view who might not like to be publicly called out as an evil person.
Kudos, David, for acknowledging bigotry in the anti-SSM movement, and that the slings and arrows suffered by heterosexuals opposed to equality are not remotely as bad as the bigotry LGBT people have to live through. I know that seems like an obvious point to my readers on “Alas,” but it’s not a point most SSM opponents would bring up.
That said, I disagree with David on a few counts — such as his implication that using the word “bigotry” is just a silencing tactic. He’s also mistaken to blame SSM proponents for “silencing” anybody, because criticism is not censorship. When SSM opponents refuse to speak in public for fear of criticism, their cowardice has silenced them.
If I say “I think your policy is bigoted,” and the person I’m talking to stomps out of the room and refuses to speak, I’m not the one who has silenced debate.
* * *
Let’s examine David’s definition of “anti-gay bigotry,” which is, he says, “the expressed belief that homosexuals deserve our contempt and are the fair objects of ridicule.” David defines “bigotry” so narrowly that virtually no one, other than a handful of loud extremists, can be criticized for bigotry. That’s extremely helpful if your point is “I’m not a bigot!” It’s not helpful if we want a real understanding of how bigotry operates and harms marginalized groups in the real world.
Let’s take a historic example of bigotry: Exclusive clubs. The word “exclusive” referred to the exclusion of Jews from membership in golf and smoking clubs (a practice that died out by the 1970s). Members of these clubs often claimed to have nothing at all against Jews (the cliche “some of my best friends are Jewish” comes from such comments), and would never have explicitly said Jews deserved contempt or ridicule. The exclusive policies were defended on the basis of tradition, and of maintaining a certain desired atmosphere.
If we say that antisemitic bigotry is “the expressed belief that Jews deserve contempt and are fair objects of ridicule,” then we’d have to conclude that there was no bigotry involved in these no-Jews-allowed clubs. With hindsight, however, we can see at least two forms of bigotry here which that definition wouldn’t cover.
First, institutional bigotry. The rule itself, keeping Jews out of the clubs, was intrinsically bigoted.
Second, the subtle bigotry of devaluing Jews and Jewish interests. When club members weighed their clubby traditions in the one hand, and the legitimate need of Jews for equal treatment in the other hand, they weighed the needs of Jews far too lightly. I don’t think they did this out of any conscious malice; rather, they did this because they were brought up in a society that constantly treated Jews as simply less valuable human beings than gentiles. This devaluation is not as obvious as open contempt and ridicule, but it is an insidious and extremely harmful form of bigotry. In fact, because it’s so much more widespread and harder to address or fight, this form of bigotry is usually more harmful than openly expressed contempt.
* * *
As I use the term, “bigotry” means unjustly treating any group’s humanity or well-being as less valuable or consequential because of who they are. This can be obvious, such as a person in a Republican Senator’s office writing “all faggots must die.” But it can also be subtle, such as a court system that systematically punishes black men a little more harshly for the same crimes, or pressure on LGBT children to appear “normal.”
It’s worth repeating that the more subtle forms of bigotry (other than overt violence and murder, which is relatively rare) do the most harm. An angry slur on a website is sickening to read; but a congressional staffer who wisely keeps such views unexpressed, but subtly nudges policy in an anti-LGBT direction over a career spanning decades, will have a much greater impact.
When our definition of bigotry is limited to only obvious overt bigotry, we’re in effect condoning the most harmful and widespread forms of bigotry, by protecting it from being named or criticized.
* * *
Any group can be treated with bigotry. But bigotry is most harmful, and the moral case against bigotry strongest, when the targeted group is a frequent target of bigotry. This is because the harms of bigotry are cumulative. When I’m bigoted against left-handed plumbers named Albert, that’s probably just a harmless eccentricity; when I’m bigoted against LGBT, I’m contributing to a long and ongoing system of harm to LGBT people.
* * *
Virtually everyone’s mind has some bigotry within. As Richard Davis wrote:
The truth is that almost nobody is entirely free of racism, bigotry, prejudice or intolerance in some form – the world is not neatly divided between the despicable bigots and enlightened, tolerant souls. Psychologists who administer tests to detect implicit bias in people have discovered that most of us have an “inner bigot” who may not be too obvious but who pulls some levers that distort our perceptions and control how we act. [...]
Here’s the truth of the matter – you are not your inner bigot. No one is. If you observe any bigoted thought or feeling that comes to you and ask “is this REALLY who I am?” the ultimate answer will be “no, it isn’t.” [...] If you see these thoughts and feelings for what they are, recognize how they grow out of fear and ignorance, then you tame them. Their power dissipates.
I don’t know what’s inside your mind when I debate you. It’s none of my business. So during debates, I try never to say “you’re a bigot.” (Although over the course of thousands of debates, doubtless I’ve slipped up sometimes.)
But I won’t hesitate to argue that an idea is bigoted; or a statement is bigoted; or a policy is bigoted.
I realize that the “b” word makes many people uncomfortable, and unhappy. It may even make people feel attacked.
But should we really declare the concept of “bigotry” forever out of bounds for all discussion, just because talking about it makes some people unhappy? How can we “see these thoughts and feelings for what they are” if half the people in this debate don’t even want the word said?
* * *
A point about those gentlemen defending exclusive clubs. Most of them were educated people. I’m sure many considered themselves kind people, who would never intend to harm anyone, Jews included. They were smart, they were sincere.
With hindsight, most of us would agree that they were badly mistaken.
To be clear: I’m not suggesting that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is exactly like exclusive clubs. (Every civil rights struggle is different.)
Rather, I’m saying that if they were mistaken, then we could be mistaken, too. It’s possible that our policies, like theirs, are bigoted, and we don’t realize it. We can’t hope to know if we dismiss all attempts to bring “the B word” into debate as personal insults, ad hom attacks, or as silencing tactics.
Civil policy debate, therefore, should not exclude that an idea or policy may be wrong because it is bigoted. The word “bigotry’ cannot and should not be banned from our discussions. And those who claim to be sincere opponents of bigotry should be the most willing to examine bigotry seriously.
A Correction
Monday, September 27th, 2010 by Jen SorensenIn the spirit of journalistic integrity, I should mention that last week’s “Trojan MILFs” cartoon contained a factual error. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell (DE-Nutball) is not, in fact, a “hot mom” as implied in the cartoon. She is unmarried and without children. I mistakenly assumed that all that talk about masturbation and abstinence meant she had some kids of her own (who would ultimately grow into repressed, confused adults with bizarre leather fetishes). I was wrong, and I apologize. If one were feeling uncharitable, one could suggest that her crusade to stop the nation from having sex might not exactly be helping her in the relationship department, but that would be catty.
Despite this error, I maintain that O’Donnell is part of a larger phenomenon — a symbolic MILF, if not a literal one. Republican women are claiming the motherhood mantle, using it to promote themselves as pillars of decency and common sense, when in fact they embody the opposite.
Unfiltered sketches of life in Afghanistan
Monday, September 27th, 2010 by Matt BorsOn Sunday The Oregonian ran an essay I wrote about my trip to Afghanistan along with a number of sketches and comics.
In August, I embarked on my first trip outside the United States, trading the calm of Portland for the chaos of Afghanistan, as election violence and deployed NATO troops reached their zenith. Along with Ted Rall and Steven Cloud, two fellow cartoonists, we traveled unembedded and without the support of any media organization (or security) to get an up-close look at Afghan life nine years after the U.S. invasion. I brought a lot of sketchbooks.
I’d been wanting to escape my drawing table — escape my comfort — and reduce the number of filters to zero between me and the country I’d been reading so much about. So I went. The trip was uncomfortable, disturbing, dirty, wonderful. The people were eager to talk and laugh and host. On the surface, smiles; underneath, life on a knife’s edge. They gracefully endure living conditions that would break most of us. I managed to learn a lot about Afghanistan and a few things about myself, but after a month you only realize how much more there is to see.
Read the rest at Oregonlive.com.
"As the World Burns" reviewed in Turkish newspaper
Monday, September 27th, 2010 by Stephanie McMillanA review of “As the World Burns” appears in the Turkish national newspaper Gazete Vatan.
Thank you to Serhat Elfun Demirkol for the translation!
Book in my Bag
As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay in Denial
Think again the trumperies of “Such Simple Things You Can Do To Save The Word”. Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan tackle the solutions driven by ecological consumption in a funny as well as an impressive way, including energy efficiency, recycling, changing faucet knob, etc. With drawings of McMillan and wording of Jensen, it’s an impressive comic. A battle of wild animals, plants and humans remembering the wholeness of nature and that humans are part of this wholeness against alien machines.
* * *
Çantamdaki kitap
Dünya Yanarken İnkar Etmek
için Yapabileceğimiz 50 Basit Şey
Dünyayı Kurtarmak İçin Yapabileceğiniz Şu Kadar Basit Şey” palavralarını bir daha düşünün. Derrick Jensen ve Stephanie McMillan, enerji verimliliği, geri dönüşüm, musluk başlıklarını değiştirmek gibi ekolojik tüketim çözümlerini eğlenceli ve eğlenceli olduğu kadar çarpıcı bir şekilde eleştiriyor. McMillan’ın çizgisi ve Jensen’in betimleriyle etkileyici bir çizgi roman. Yıkımı durdurmak için bir araya gelen yabani hayvanların, bitkilerin ve doğanın bütünlüğünü ve insanın da bunun bir parçası olduğunu yeniden hatırlamaya başlayan insanların uzaydan gelen makinelere karşı savaşı.
Çeviren: Yıldız Temürtürkan
Sayfa Sayısı: 224
Yayınevi: Minima Yayıncılık
Fiyatı: 11,25 TL
“Car Talk”
Monday, September 27th, 2010 by August J. Pollak
For a few weeks now, the president’s been making the analogy that the country is a car and it’s all about who the driver is. Then conservatives started making their own analogy. Then analogies compound upon themselves. Meanwhile, we don’t have a “metaphorical” 14 percent unemployment rate.
Politics would be better right now if Obama stopped saying that “Republicans want the keys back after we’re in a ditch” and said something more fluid, such as “Republicans are greedy, stubborn asshats who don’t care that you’re starving to death because it’s beneficial for them for you to suffer.” I also suppose instead of metaphors, Republicans could likewise just say “Democrats are spineless cowards who don’t deserve the majority they were handed based on now-broken promises to improve peoples’ lives,” but, well, that’s my job.
Buy some crap.
Sign up for the mailing list.
Join the public Facebook page for the strip.
Stalk me on Twitter.
