Scared yet?

Just the beginning...

After the shocking realization that Donald Trump would become our next President, what appears to be MORE than half of the country became stricken with fear. When we all started imagining the terrifying implications of a Trump White House in conjunction with a Republican majority in Congress, many possibilities began to take hold of our hearts with an icy grip.

Well, already, almost two months before the reality-television star and former Wrestlemania headliner takes office, some of our worst fears have reared their ugly heads. Aside from the obviously, most terrifying appointment of white-supremacist, Steve Bannon as “chief-strategist”, just this week we have seen some more specific examples of what the impending Trump administration will look like.

Trump’s recent preferred choice to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma has made her positions known through her work with several state governments in dealing with Obama’s Affordable Care Act. One of her most egregious proposals is in the process of being confirmed and would be confirmed if she were to take on the position Trump plans to bestow upon her. The plan she has put forth in Kentucky would force the poorest citizens looking to receive health insurance through her revision of the ACA to participate in unpaid “work activity.” Those low-income folks who would not be able to pay the fees incurred due to their use of the healthcare system in Kentucky, would be forced to pay off their debt through community service work. While some may see this as a reasonable measure to ensure that fees are paid by those who cannot outright afford to pay off their medical bills, many of us may see it as being terrifyingly reminiscent of the sort of indentured servitude seen after the abolition of slavery. The recently “freed” slaves would work for their “former” owners until such time that they had paid off the “debt” they apparently owed their masters for housing and feeding them and their children while they were slaves. Obviously, the masters were reluctant to give up their workers, so these supposedly temporary periods of indentured servitude lasted indefinitely, probably for the remainder of the “freed’ slaves life. So why would this be any different today under such a “work activity” program?

To apply this kind of standard to health care, which many of us see as a human right, is beyond appalling. 

Some of us may remember the huge step that President Obama took in Criminal Justice reform this past August. Under Obama’s urging, the Department of Justice announced that as the contracts for each of the privately owned prisons reached their end, the DoJ would decline to renew those contracts in an effort to reduce the countries usage of such for-profit institutions. This was a massive win for Criminal Justice reform, as these prisons represented some of the worst examples of our disastrous Criminal Justice system. Immediately after the results of Novembers election became clear, the stock in Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison corporation in the US, rose by forty three percent. This was no coincidence. This was due to Trumps comments on the campaign trail: 

“I do think we can do a lot of privatizations and private prisons. It seems to work a lot better.” 

If by “a lot better” he means that they perpetuate our countries epidemic of mass incarceration and human rights abuses in prisons, then yeah, they’re “a lot better.”

With Trumps incredibly disturbing pick of the famously racist Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, this is only the beginning of the sort of policies we might see in the coming years.

Just today, the almost adorably uninformed, moronic and sleepy Dr. Ben Carson was appointed Housing Secretary, tasked with leading the Department for Housing and Urban Development. This is such a delicate and nuanced position that whoever would be in charge of this department aught to be well versed in the forces that impact poverty and what would be needed to combat such forces. Instead of someone who would fit those qualifications, we get Ben Carson, who has no experience in any government office whatsoever, never mind any sort of ability to grasp nuance or compassion. Trump himself criticized Ben Carson for having a “pathological temper.” 

So, as expected, right off the bat there are quite a few things to worry about... and we’ve only just begun. To quote Ta-Nehisi Coates: 

“This is not despair. These are the preferences of the universe itself: verbs over nouns, actions over states, struggle over hope. The birth of a better world is not ultimately up to you, though I know, each day, there are grown men and women who tell you otherwise. The world needs saving precisely because of the actions of these same men and women.” 

And if these decisions are not enough to get you involved, I don’t know what will be.

White Privilege and ‘Iron Fist’

If you’re reading this hoping for a detailed history of the comic book canon of the baffling Marvel super hero ‘Iron Fist’ you may be disappointed. (Also, that means you’re a really weird kind of nerd, and it takes one to know one.) But the discussion around the casting of a white guy (Finn Jones from ‘Game of Thrones’ fame,) to play ‘Iron Fist’ in the upcoming Netflix series has brought up the concept of white privilege. 

When Marvel and Netflix first announced they would be rounding out ‘The Defenders’ team of Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage (aka Power Man) and Iron Fist, those of us who had read a comic book or two (vicious understatement) were a little concerned about what they were planning on doing about the cringe worthy awkwardness of Iron Fist. 

Basically, in the comics Iron Fist is a rich white guy named Danny Rand who gets totally into asian culture and martial arts with a weird, mystical, fantasy vibe. He and his black girlfriend go to a place in Asia that only exists sometimes and the nice folks there give him magical punching powers. Eventually he meets this super cool black guy (Luke Cage,) they become besties and decide to fight crime together in Harlem. 

Aside from how ridiculous and nerdy the story itself is, perhaps you can already see why people might raise an eyebrow. Immediately after it was announced, many people, myself included, thought it would make more sense to just make Mr. Rand be of asian descent. It seemed like an easy fix to the stickiness of a white guy pretending to be asian and saving black people, while also getting an asian actor on a super hero team.

But apparently it’s more important to stay true to the silly nonsense of the pre-established literary canon. Since that decision seems to already have been made, it seems like it may be important for Netflix to take this opportunity to address the undeniable fact that being a wealthy, straight, white man in America is, without a doubt, the least stressful and most obnoxious type of person to be.

As a straight, white man, I am the problem. I believe that to be true because of, yunno, all of history. We have successfully positioned ourselves as the standard against which any deviation is compared, and we’ve made sure that the comparison always portrays us favorably. Straight, white men have maintained their standing as the de-facto decision makers in government, the media, the economy, entertainment and organized religion for centuries, through oppression, slavery, subjugation, genocide and any other nefarious methods at their disposal. And  yes, this absolutely makes me feel ashamed and guilty about who I am, what I represent, and that I benefit from hate and bigotry on a daily basis. And I think it should. But does that mean I should be complacent and sit by in shame while I watch the people who have disgraced me continue to commit atrocities that are in direct opposition with what I believe? While there is a case to be made for straight, white men just shutting up because our voices have been heard far too much for far too long, I absolutely could not live with myself if I did not use my privileged position to fight for what I know to be right.

I realize that I am not the first straight, white man to be “woke” or aware of his implicit obligation to do everything in his power to attempt to repair the damage that his ancestors have wrought. But nor will I be the last to be embarrassed into complacence for fear of being a part of the problem or offending the very people he stands in solidarity with. 

So, how should someone like myself go about making a difference in a productive way without making people cringe? Essentially, in the same way we learned to care in the first place:

Exposing yourself to the realities around you, getting out of your comfort zone, listening, learning and paying attention with respect and humility.

Humility in this case involves realizing that you are starting from a place of ignorance and being open to changing your opinion when you find out you are wrong. 

Reading and listening to the way people who are Not straight, white or male talk about themselves and discuss the issues that effect their lives allows you to stay informed and aware of how best to contribute to the conversation. Perhaps you could even go and make friends with people who are different than you. And when you do, if they roll their eyes at you, or throw shade or remind you of your priviledge, shut the fuck up because you deserve it. Sorry, you just do, and if you can’t be humble and deal with it, then it turns out you ARE part of the problem. 

My hope for  how Netflix and Marvel go about dealing with the uncomfortable dynamic that Iron Fist creates is this: directness, mockery and condescension. 

When characters like Luke Cage and Jessica Jones are confronted with Iron Fists privileged, ignorant cultural appropriation, I’d like to see them deal with Danny Rand in a similar way that liberals will have to deal with our new President elect when he tweets something like “I love hispanics!” accompanied by an image of a taco bowl: eye-rolling, laughter or flat-out anger.

As long as the unfortunate perpetual hegemony is reminded of their privileged status, perhaps we can all continue to make cultural progress, despite the compounding set-backs we have been subjected to lately. Considering there has been such a massive push-back from white men in America as of late, most obviously with the election of the KKK supported Presidential candidate, it is more important than ever to maintain a level of disgust with the racially imbalanced status-quo that continues to perpetuate itself. While some of us may have grown a bit complacent after eight years of a well-intentioned, liberally-minded black man as President, that is all very much over now and battle lines must be drawn and the fires of passion must once again be stoked against the fast approaching onslaught of bigotry. And while perhaps my suggestions for how a juvenile, super-hero tv-show should be written may seem inconsequential, every little bit counts.

The Second Amendment: Being Necessary to the Security of Bigotry

In the United States of 2016 (still entirely relevant, though gun sales in the US have gone down because we are under a Republican administration[9/17]), there are two issues that elicit some of the most volatile and contentious debate: race and guns. Both of these topics come up in the media and public discussion with remarkable frequency. Both of these topics have distinctive, opposing perspectives with incredibly passionate supporters on both sides and complicated ideologies and rhetoric used to back up each position. In regard to race there are groups such as Black Lives Matter being opposed by various conservative media organizations and police advocates, both with firmly held positions and arguments. As for guns, there are those who position themselves as gun rights advocates in opposition to those in favor of stricter gun control. A year ago I wrote a post  entitled, “A Well Regulated Militia”, in which I made the case that the Constitution is not an immutable document and that perhaps we ought to reconsider the viability of the Second Amendment in today’s society. Since then, there have been over 10,000 deaths caused by guns in the U.S. , including the worst mass shooting in the country’s history (Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida 6/16). At the same time, incidents of police officers killing African-Americans with disproportionate frequency has continued to draw national attention and public outrage. While these two issues are not always related and there are some who would correlate the two from the opposite viewpoint, it is my intention to suggest that the very nature and purpose of the Second Amendment is to at least disadvantage, if not oppress, African-American citizens. 

 The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
 The framers of the Constitution had many constituencies to appease during it’s creation. At the time, there were those states in which chattel slavery of blacks was legal and an integral part of their economy, and those states in which it was not. The states in which it was legal relied on groups of armed citizens known as “militias” to control the massive population of slaves. It was their responsibility to keep track of the slave population, search the houses of the slaves for weapons, prevent an organized slave rebellion, and return escaped slaves to their masters for punishment. So when the Constitution was being formed, the slaveholders from the Southern states who were part of the discussion, voiced their concerns about the necessity for a strong militia and their fears that if the Federal government had a say in regard to their slave control militias, the delegates of Northern states would not understand what they saw as a necessity. One of these slaveholders, Patrick Henry, expressed such fears suggesting:
“May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery?...This is a local matter. and I can see no propriety in subjugating it to Congress.” “In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.”
In this impressive display of tyranny, oppression and, unbeknownst to him, prescience, Henry successfully made the case for including a protection of the right of states, not the Federal government, to regulate their armed civilian militias. 

 The argument that is often heard from today’s gun rights advocates that the Second Amendment is more about the ability of the citizens to rebel against a tyrannical Federal government in such a case that their rights were being infringed upon comes into contention with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Fourteenth Amendment is more important in that it makes anyone born in the United States a citizen with the ability to vote, serve on a jury, and possess all the rights and freedoms of any other citizen as well as further establishing the results of the emancipation of the slaves, there is a less frequently discussed clause. In several places it is mentioned that participation, engagement, or aid in 
“insurrection or rebellion against The United States... shall be held illegal and void.” 
which seems to suggest that any such actions would forego one’s rights as a citizen. This would create a “Catch-22” scenario in which one only maintains the right to bear arms by abstaining from participation in rebellion but one is only given cause to use said arms for the very purpose of insurrection that would render those rights obsolete. So if that is the case, for what reason other than the subjugation of oppressed people, which was clearly made illegal by the Emancipation Proclamation as well as the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments collectively, would there be to have an armed civilian militia? 

 In more recent history, and one might argue to this day, the African Americans population has been relegated to the position of second-class citizenship through the creation of various state laws that have effectively and in many cases, purposefully disenfranchised and curtailed their rights as citizens. There have been innumerable examples of this and even after these laws or practices are dissolved or overturned in each case, they elucidate the deeply ingrained biases, systemic inequalities or simply unconscious racist tendencies that persist in different cohorts of our society. Some of the more blatant examples show just how unabashedly bigoted a large percentage of our population is enthusiastically willing to be. Shortly after the freeing of the slaves, the regulation of state laws was unspecific and given little oversight which led many Southern states to enact what were known as “Black Codes”. The goal of these laws was explicitly to restrict the rights of black people. There are numerous examples of these blatantly oppressive laws including a Mississippi law that stated that any non-white person was prohibited from owning any weapon, including guns and even dogs, for fear that they would be used in a violent fashion. There were restrictions and obstacles in several states that made it impossible for many blacks to vote or participate in government, limiting the ability to assemble in groups, as well as many laws that made it easier for the police to arrest blacks for minor infractions. As the years went by, the form that these laws took became ever so slightly more subtle. “Jim Crow Laws”, which were in place all the way until the civil rights era in 1965, enforced racial segregation with facilities available to blacks being generally of inferior quality and availability. The “War on Drugs” started by Richard Nixon and accentuated by Ronald Reagan, began the ever so slightly more subtle method of mass incarceration of the black population by focusing on inner cities and low income neighborhoods predominantly inhabited by minorities. Further still was the practice of “Stop and Frisk” based on the 1968 Supreme Court ruling of ‘ Terry v. Ohio’, which gave the police the ability to stop civilians based on “reasonable suspicion” as opposed to the usual “probable cause”. This, unsurprisingly, resulted in rampant racial profiling. Even just this year there was an example of Voter ID laws in North Carolina which were clearly enacted to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. In light of the country’s very consistent history of allowing states to create laws targeting black Americans, is it so strange to imagine that the founding documents of our country would be even more unabashedly racist? 

 On the other hand, the Black Panthers made a very good case for the Second Amendment as a tool for the black community to protect themselves against such laws. Beginning in 1966 The Black Panther Party, concerned with the treatment of the black community by the judicial system and the police force, called for an arming of the black community. Very similarly to the idea of a militia to defend against a tyrannical government, armed “to the teeth”, Black Panthers would follow police officers on their patrols, making sure that the rights of the citizens whom the police would stop were enforced and protected. While we see ever present examples of police abusing their power today, which would reasonably lead one to think that this approach might be appropriate now, it sets a dangerous precedent. Having these civilian “police patrols” armed with guns only further ignites fears and galvanizes the already tense relationship the community has with police officers. But considering the outrage today concerning law enforcement and their overwhelmingly discriminatory practices and procedures, there is without doubt something that must be done to reform the police. In order to be confident that a police force can be trusted with an unbiased approach to the equal protection of all members of the community, regardless of who they are, there would need to be a sufficiently diverse and informed system of oversight, bureaucratic checks and balances and a carefully crafted, unanimously agreed upon training process. And to take a page from the Black Panthers, perhaps a more effective approach for our current day society would be to have police watch patrols armed with cameras instead of guns. 

 The primary concern regarding the Second Amendment in today’s America is the indisputable fact of an underlying racial bias inherent in our culture. To suggest that we should all have access to guns undermines the point that there is a clear difference in the perception of racial minorities and how they are viewed by a large portion of the American public. Before there can be equal opportunity for those of all races to carry weapons, so much of the institutionalized biases that are plaguing our country need to be addressed and dealt with accordingly. Until then there is an inherent disadvantage to those citizens who are not viewed as white. Given the racial prejudice inherent in our society, is it reasonable to assume that an armed civilian population can be trusted with making judgements on who they believe elicits the kind of terror or alarm that would make someone draw and fire a weapon? There have been far more than enough examples to suggest otherwise.