Let's kick it off with a long section of Anne Sexton's "For John Who Begs Me Not To Enquire Further:"
Not that it was beautiful,
but that, in the end, there was
a certain sense of order there;
something worth learning
in that narrow diary of my mind,
in the commonplaces of the asylum
where the cracked mirror
or my own selfish death
outstared me.
And if I tried
to give you something else,
something outside of myself,
you would not know
that the worst of anyone
can be, finally,
an accident of hope.
I tapped my own head;
it was glass, an inverted bowl.
It is a small thing
to rage in your own bowl.
At first it was private.
Then it was more than myself;
it was you, or your house
or your kitchen.
And if you turn away
because there is no lesson here
I will hold my awkward bowl,
with all its cracked stars shining
like a complicated lie,
and fasten a new skin around it
as if I were dressing an orange
or a strange sun.
Not that it was beautiful,
but that I found some order there.
There ought to be something special
for someone
in this kind of hope.
This is something I would never find
in a lovelier place, my dear,
although your fear is anyone’s fear,
like an invisible veil between us all…
and sometimes in private,
my kitchen, your kitchen,
my face, your face.
An e-mail asks: "So you're not going to repost Jackson Hinkle's show at your site anymore?" No.
I
have ethics. Jackson offers little more than a cheering section,
usually for Jimmy Dore. It's not like he was leading on any issue.
Which is perfect for this topic, by the way.
Let's
pretend that Jackson Hinkle is an expert on something. Let's pretend
that he's the only one in the world who can speak to Russia.
And let's say I have a show and can invite him on.
While
Jackson is an expert on Russia, turns out that he's also been arrested
three times for trying to get (trick?) underage girls online into
meeting up with him for sex. One time, he got off on a promise that
he'd never do it again -- yes, sadly, the justice system was that
pathetic in the '00s. The second time, he got probation. The third
time he got sent to prison. He is now a registered sex offender.
He is the best and only expert on the topic of war with Russia.
Do I bring him on my YOUTUBE program?
See,
I'm not visualizing such an internal debate taking place for Fiorella
Isabell or Richard Medhurst aor any of the other people putting Scott
Ritter on their programs.
For me?
Hell no, I'd never put someone like that on a program. It's called ethics.
As
I noted on Wednesday, if someone wants to disagree about whispers and
claims, that's fine. Have that person on. But if someone's been
arrested multiple times and been convicted, that's not the same thing as
someone being targeted with a whisper campaign or someone involved in a
disputed situation (i.e. he said-she said, he said-he said,
she-said-she said, they said-he said, they said-she said, they said-they
said).
We can disagree about Michael Jackson
or whomever. We weren't three. We form our best judgments based on
the abilities at reasoning that we've been given. Michael was never
convicted in a court of law. There was the opportunity to do so and it
didn't happen. So we can disagree. And I may roll my eyes over this or
that person being on a broadcast but that's all I'm going to do.
Scott Ritter, like Harvey Weinstein, has been convicted. The court has ruled.
This is not disputed. He did time in prison for what he did.
And he is a threat to girls everywhere since that's who he stalks.
No, I'm not going to put him on a program.
It's not even open to debate. Why would I put other females in jeopardy?
Now
Queen Bees like Fiorella, they're on their own. There's a reason she
has no female friends. There's a reason she does a program that is
nothing but men, men, men. She's Patty Hearst. She's been in the
closet and conditioned into hostage mentality.
As for the men involved, if this is new to you, let me say, "Welcome to our sad world."
I'm
so sorry if no one ever told you that working to end a war and working
for the rights of all led to the second wave of feminism precisely
because too many men don't give a s**t about women. I'm sorry that I
have to be the one to impart that hard truth on you.
But it was the rank sexism in the movements of the sixties that led to the rise of second wave feminism.
Their bias is based on many things including a lack of understanding.
They
don't get the way some people are targeted -- that's women of all
races, that's people of color, that's the LGBTQ community.
Ignorance, we can deal with. We've all been ignorant of something and you address ignorance by sharing.
It also shouldn't be that hard today because it is a different world.
The sixties had a huge shift, the seventies as well, every decade has brought us closer as a people.
Sharing and listening has led to greater understanding.
But ignorance was only one aspect.
And let's not just point our fingers at the men.
Let's
use Fiorella. She's doing nothing to help other women -- that's pretty
much her entire work. She won't and the reason being is she's a Queen
Bee (as defined by Gloria Steinem in REVOLUTION FROM WITHIN). She's got
to be the only woman in the room. Otherwise, she doesn't feel
special. She wants to be the token because she's allowed herself to
embrace defined standards that were imposed by a male dominated culture
and I'm going to come back to that at the end, by the way, that topic
and we're gong to address WSWS on a different but related topic.
But
Fiorella surrounds herself with men because she hates women including
herself. She hates them, she thinks they aren't worth anything. So she
will gladly do her part to hold the rest of us down.
Her
chit chatting and smiling and laughing with a man arrested three times
for pedophilia -- let's call it what it is -- and a man who was sent to
prison for it?
That's just fun for her.
"Look how tough I am," she's beaming not realizing that she doesn't look tough, that she looks tragic and pathetic.
So there are women like Fiorella out there.
There are also men out there that need to be called out.
"Identity politics.''
We are constantly forced to hear that term and hear it with derision.
That, we are told by various men, is what is holding the left back.
WSWS
wants to tell you that it's all class issues and that's what we need to
focus on. By focusing on other things -- gender is their direct target
because they know they have to whisper when they're targeting race --
we are drawing lines between one another that prevent us from working
together as a group and effecting change.
We
are the bad ones, they insist. If we'd just drop our 'issues' and go
along with what they deem important, there would be no problems and we'd
all have Medicare For All by now, for example.
I fully support Medicare For All and I think everyone should have it.
But it hasn't happened in my lifetime and there's a good chance it won't.
However,
rape has happened in my lifetime. Girls have been kidnapped in my
lifetime (including me). We've been raped. We've been beaten. We've
been violently murdered.
And that's not an isolated moment.
I hear the horror over gun violence -- the constant bleeting.
Gun violence is appalling.
But
women and girls are the victims of violence more times a day than gun
violence. And it's just shrug and pretend that's okay?
We
may never get Medicare For All. I'm happy to work on that issue but
I'm not dropping other issues. And I'm certainly not gong to sacrifice
women and girls to get Medicare For All.
If we're not all free, none of us are free.
Decrying
abuse is not deflecting from larger issues. The personal is political
worked as a slogan because there is so much truth to it. You can use
Judith N. Shklar's works to back that up -- whether it's FACES OF
INJUSTICE or THE QUEST FOR INCLUSION (others as well but I'd recommend
those two).
When someone who is being
mistreated can grasp that this is not 'personal' in the ways that
Benjamin Barber's sad work has implied over the years, and not just
their lot in life, that person can see other levels of oppression and
can move from point A to point B or further as a result. Once they see
that it's not their fault or 'just you,' they are radicalized and see
links and a system that needs to be taken on.
Now
there is excess in everything and sometimes "the personal is political"
devolves into a lot of nonsense and an excuse to right about nonsense
while pretending that this nonsense -- often 'reality' TV -- is worth
recapping. A very strong and revolutionary look can be taken at
'reality' TV -- and could even result in finding some good in that genre
-- but I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to websites that try
to present as weighty when they're not. They're not even able to use
the excuse of first principles. And, when it comes to feminism, we've
had more than enough first principles writings. We've all gone to pre-K
now and are ready for weightier topics and more evolved discussions.
So the personal is political should not be used as a cop out that allows you to avoid dealing with actual issues.
Sadly, it sometimes has been.
But
the slogan still works because it is embedded with truth. The student
in class noting that she's not called on and that others of her race are
not called on by the TA, is making connections and grasping that it's
not just her and that there is a system of oppression taking place.
We
applaud that in other areas. We're allowed to as leftists. But we
won't applaud it when it comes to racial consciousness and if it results
in gender consciousness or sexuality consciousness, we'll outright hiss
as a leftist collective.
And we think that makes us look cool.
Really, it makes you look stupid.
You're
not just a pothead comedian in your basement, you're a moron who
doesn't know the first thing about anything and maybe shouldn't be
hosting a program due to your extreme stupidity.
This
shared consciousness, this awakening that leads to change? Karl Marx
addressed it. The term wasn't coined when he was writing about it but
that's the whole point of the worker grasping that he has shared
grievances with another worker. That's what's behind the concept of
class consciousness.
If Marx were alive today,
hopefully, he'd be addressing the barriers to class consciousness.
Those do include that some can't see beyond certain identifiers --
meaning that their inability to relate to what a transgendered person or
a young gay teen has to endure creates a barrier that prevents working
as a collective.
Identity politics is not the
problem for all the derision heaped upon the term. The derision itself
is a sign of discrimination. Certain people -- men and, yes, sadly
women as well -- feel that their 'improtant' issue is getting less
attention or none at all because this or that 'fluffy' issue is getting
attention.
You saw that with the reaction of
some to what happened to Chris Rock. You saw a lot of writers on the
left -- at DISSIDENT VOICE for example, insist that time was wasted on
the topic.
A man was assaulted. Now, yes,
Chris Rock is my friend. But that doesn't change the fact that he was
assaulted on live television at a global event. That was broadcast
around the world live and now lives on forever on YOUTUBE and elsewhere.
A man was assaulted and that's a distraction? Talking about it is a distraction?
A
Black man was assaulted for the 'crime' of offending a woman's 'honor'
and that's not worth addressing? Even with the historical practice in
the US of justifying assaults on African-American males on the grounds
that some woman's 'honor' had been besmirched?
I'm
so sorry that your little pet issue -- in the case of DISSIDETN VOICE, a
program that's been going on for over a decade but that the writer had
just discovered that week -- didn't get the attention you felt it
deserved.
Welcome to my world where Iraq is ignored completely in the US.
We
are the country that destroyed Iraq. You can say the UK and Australia
helped. But we are the country that destroyed Iraq. Our government's
actions ensured the destruction -- and it's an ongoing destruction.
They are a land of orphans and widows. 21 is the median age in Iraq and
that's not the result of a baby boom, that's the result of the massive
deaths that have resulted from this war.
An ongoing war. US troops remain on the ground. The US continues to occupy Iraq.
How many Iraqi politicians will it take to say the US needs to leave before the US leaves?
A major report on the ongoing assault on Iraq's LBT community is released this year and everyone in the US ignores it.
The 19th anniversary of the ongoing war took place last month and the US couldn't be bothered.
So, yeah, I get your frustration.
But don't pretend that the assault of Chris Rock wasn't actual news and didn't deserve actual discussion and actual analysis.
The US destroyed the rights of women in Iraq.
I have called that out here. If I don't call out this Scott Ritter nonsense, what message am I sending?
I'm
first off saying that he's a good guy and trust him and remember that
when he rapes you so that you can pursue me as an accessory to that
assault since I not only refused to identify him as a convicted sex
offender but also used my platform to promote him as someone to listen
to and to trust.
Second, I'm saying that it's okay for women to be assaulted and we should just take it.
Iraqi women have showed real bravery and strength throughout this ongoing war.
But
I'm going to back off from calling out a bunch of pampered men for
bringing a convicted sex offender on their program and promoting him?
What message would that send?
So
____, no, I don't need you to "smooth things over." One of the
YOUTUBERS who has been promoting Scott wanted me to know in an e-mail
that they could fix this and if I'd just agree not to mention it again,
everything would be okay.
What will be okay?
Do you really believe i want to be a part of your circle jerk?
Kid,
you're not that important. Equally true, DAILY KOS and others tried to
make me a part of their circle jerk almost two decades ago. Nope.
Didn't want it. A friend mentions me on their NPR pgoram and my
response was, "Please don't eve do that again." Or when ALTERNET was
linking to us and I'm the one who tells them to me off their blogroll.
You're
under some foolish notion that I'm in fear over this topic having fall
out. That I'm afraid this site will be harmed or I will be if we don't
have your support.
The only thing I'm in fear
over regarding this topic has nothing to do with you or your other
YOUTUBERS. As I said in the roundtable last night for the gina &
krista round-robin, I'll address it tomorrow, late tomorrow. I'll sleep
in. I'll work out. Then I'll write it myself, type it, not dictate
it. I'll take my time posting it. Because I'm just too damn sick of
having to relive.
I was assaulted.
And
I was lucky because there was no debate on it. I was young (single
digit age), I was kidnapped from my school and I was taken off and
assaulted. There was no way to play blame the victim. I was lucky in
that regard.
A lot of people aren't.
But I really don't like having to relive this and certainly not on someone else's time table.
I have no fear of calling out Scott Ritter.
I
know he needs to be called out and I have had to do so over and over
since 2004. But, no, it's not something, the topic itself, that I want
to spend each morning with.
Tina and I have
talked about how your day can be gone, shot to hell, Tina Turner, when
you're forced into these conversations about abuse. And I feel forced
into it now.
That's why I am appalled that it
has to be me yet a-damn-gain. Just once, I'd love to see one of you
supposed strong and brave men step up and call out Scott Ritter on your
platform. Just one damn time, it would be great to hear you say that
what he did was wrong and that it is appalling that elements of the left
are embracing him. Instead, I have to victimize myself -- that is what
it feels like -- and relive an experience to call out what needs to be
called out.
If the YOUTUBER e-mailing me truly
wanted to 'help' me, he'd be using his program and platform to state he
was wrong to bring Scott Ritter on his program and to promote him. He'd
be saying that he stands with those who have survived assault and not
with the convicted sex offender.
But he can't
relate to that and so he can't relate to me. And his ignorance is the
real barrier preventing us from all working together. It's not identity
politics that's the problem, it's that he's more comfortable
identifying with a convicted sex offender than he is with the survivors
of assault.
I watch from the US amazed at the
way the Iraqi girls and women keep fighting for their rights and against
various assaults. They are inspiring and they will avenge the
injustices that were imposed on their country. The US government was
fine to make them the sacrificial lambs.
And,
sadly, in the US some elements of the left are happy to make females
here their ritual sacrifice as well. It's not right and it's not
liberation and it's not about building a class consciousness.
Alice
Walker has spoken often about how she uses her work to create the world
we could have and it's a shame that far less talented people can't see
that using their platforms to promote a convicted sex offender is not
creating anything of value.
Yet they bring
Scott on their programs. They don't identify him as a convicted sex
offender. They joke with him and smirk with him and sometimes they even
lie for him: 'Scott was banned by the media because he spoke out against
the Iraq war!' No, Scott was kicked off corporate media when they
learned the truth. It's up here, in real time. A CNN friend called me
and said not to note him, that CNN had just learned of his arrest for
attempting to meet up with a young girl for sex. And that CNN was
further shocked to learn that this was his second arrest for it. He's
now got three arrests and he's been sent to prison for it but keep
repeating the lie that his speaking out against the Iraq War is what got
him kicked off TV. You look like a cheap whore but then, outside of a
carnival, most mirrors reflect reality.
I've had to deal with this topic repeatedly this week including Tuesday in a snapshot that I dictated but scrapped.
I
will note that is it very disappointing what so many are doing. It's
especially sad with regards to Jackson Hinkle because he's only 22 yet
not only has instilled the worst of an oppressive patriarchy, he's also
bound and determined to actively participate in furthering the worst.
How sad.
And I'm pulling a section. It'll go
into Saturday's entry. There was a need originally to include it --
it's related and it would ensure peak readership for this post that I
want people to read, I want the word out on Scott Ritter. But as I look
over the snapshot, I'm seeing that it will actually overwhelm what came
before, or stands a good chance of doing so. It'll go up Saturday in
whatever I post that night.
We opened with Anne Sexton and we'll wind down with her again, from "Flee On Your Donkey:"
Anne, Anne,
flee on your donkey,
flee this sad hotel,
ride out on some hairy beast,
gallop backward pressing
your buttocks to his withers,
sit to his clumsy gait somehow.
Ride out
any old way you please!
In this place everyone talks to his own mouth.
That's what it means to be crazy.
Those I loved best died of it—
the fool's disease.
The following sites updated: