Halffull.org

A recent article by hulk asserts that “The biggest problem in the black community today is that they are waiting for help. They expect it to come from outside.” I have a slightly different take on the issue — that poverty, which tends to afflict more racial and ethnic minorities, creates a cycle of learned helplessness.

Learned helplessness is a theory in psychology that states when an organism is exposed to repeated aversive conditions from which it cannot escape, the organism eventually stops trying to escape. To apply it to this problem, if a person learns though repeated experience that he cannot escape poverty, that whatever job he can get will pay minimum wage, and that he can’t survive on that, he may stop trying to escape poverty and begin living hand to hand, without saving money, because he has come to believe that his actions have no effect on his world and that everything around him is out of his control.

A friend of mine worked in a free reproductive health clinic that served mostly patients without insurance or other access to healthcare. One of her patients was a 13-year-old girl, already sexually active. My friend explained the need for the patient to protect herself against disease and unwanted pregnancy, explained the birth control options, and then asked which of the options the girl would like to choose. The girl said, whatever happens to me is going to happen — I have no control over it. At 13, she had already decided that she had no control over her life, even over what happened directly to her body.

So if learned helplessness is happening in poverty-stricken areas of the US, what can be done? Welfare won’t help, because it’s a benefit that happens to someone, not a benefit that someone causes to happen. Handouts, however well-intentioned, won’t help either. What needs to happen is a sense of ownership and a sense of control being given back to people, starting at an early age — people need to learn that what they do has an effect on their world and that they can make changes, for better or for worse, in their lives.

John Roberts has been in hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee for a week now, and we still know very little about the man. He did give us a clue in responding to a pointed question that he does believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy. What that right to privacy means, though, can be interpreted in many ways.

Roe v. Wade, for example, is based upon one’s right to privacy. A law was struck down in Texas that barred consensual sodomy on the basis of the right to privacy. The concept of privacy, if expanded, could include matters like the right to die, the right to participate in armed service, and other issues. So John Roberts believes the Constitution protects the right to privacy. What’s he going to do with that belief?

He also, in response to questioning this week, stated that he does believe in respecting judicial precedent — a concept known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, law continues to be shaped by previous court cases. However, stare decisis does not mean a court case once decided will stand forever — Plessy v. Ferguson, which allowed for “separate but equal” public schools and other facilities, was later struck down by Brown v. Board of Education, which made segregation illegal. Prohibition was repealed in a consitutional amendment. So Roberts’ saying he does respect judicial precedent isn’t telling us terribly much.

So where does he stand, and where will he stand, on the issues that will shape the rest of our lives in this country? He ain’t telling. To which I say, damn, that’s slick. And a little scary.

I’ve been hearing a lot in the past few days about looting and rioting in New Orleans, and isn’t it terrible — all these poor people running around with guns, scaring the daylights out of reporters, holding nice middle-class people in terror, etc, etc. I don’t mean to be rude, but really — is anyone surprised?

It’s self-evident that we continue to live in a racially and economically divided society — although those of us who live on the upper sides of those divides don’t have to think about it much, unless we drive through the barrio or the ghetto or the bad area of town that doesn’t have a name. So we can ignore that part of town, that part of society, and that’s fine in theory until something like, say, a natural disaster forces us to confront the existence of that part of society. And here it is — and it’s pissed.

Nice Middle-class White Person: Well, gosh, why are they all so angry? Why the guns and the looting and the rioting? It’s so scary!

Erm, let’s think about this. A hurricane is a predictable event. What to do in a hurricane is to leave the area. Those in town who could, left — which means they gassed up their cars, bought food and bottled water, and drove away. The part of society that’s rioting right now didn’t have that option — they don’t have cars that work, they couldn’t afford gas, they couldn’t get everyone in the family into the car, whatever — leaving wasn’t an option. Now they’ve been stuck in a flooded town with little relief aid for several days, and they’re asking why they’re not being helped. In the absence of a concentrated and immediate relief effort, they’re helping themselves to what they want.

A similar phenomenon occurred in Nicaragua over a decade ago — only in this case, the hurricane that swept through in 1994 was absolutely predicted and the upper class was absolutely told about it. The government just neglected to tell the lower classes about it and then provided no relief aid. The fallout from the event is still occurring, and the people have lost any faith in the government, because the government’s lack of action basically said “we don’t care if you live or die.”

Rioting and looting can be selfishly motivated, sure. Most of us wouldn’t pass up the opportunity for free stuff if we could get away with it or if the situation were right, even if we think stealing is wrong. But rioting and looting as a mass phenomenon spring from another place, I think: desperation and anger. When it’s been demonstrated (again) that you’re at the bottom on the scale of whose life is worth more, breaking the rules of the society that deems you worthless has got to become easy, if not necessary.

It’s all bad. But the system that allowed this to happen was laid in place long before the hurricane hit.

In response to hulk’s recent rant about the Democrats, the obvious solution seems to be a multi-party system. That way everyone could match their personal criteria to one of several candidates, instead of picking one issue that ends up determining their status. Like going to Starbucks and saying “I’d like this drink, with this kind of milk, with this kind of flavor, in this size, and I want it hot/iced/with sprinkles/with whipped cream/with strippers.” Starbucks is a successful empire because their product is good and because they have a system that allows for customization, and America seems to love customization.

In a viable multi-party system, one could say, “well, I’m anti-abortion, so I’m not a Democrat, but I’m anti-gun, so I’m not a Republican either. I like to support environmental initiatives, but I also support smaller government, and this makes me a [insert fourth or fifth party's name here]. I’m going to go vote now!” Northern Ireland, for example, has at least four major political parties. Most fall on one side or the other of the old British/Republic of Ireland line, but on each side of that line there are still multiple issues to have opinions on. A multi-party system allows people to match their candidate on more than just one or two issues.

But given the strength of third parties in this country (laughable at best), I doubt the dual-party system is gonna change soon. Nope, instead of having multiple choices, politically we’re still Coke or Pepsi, Democrat or Republican.

This nation contains a multitude of religious and moral beliefs, and in order to serve the public without trampling on anyone’s beliefs or morals, it’s often best to take the most conservative route. I’m speaking specifically of sex ed in public schools. What I’m concerned about, though, is the abstinence-only propaganda that’s being passed off as sex ed in many high schools. According to a report I recently found (see link below), many of the curricula currently approved for federal funding as encouraging abstinence have numerous scientific errors. Some claim that condoms are not effective as a contraceptive (when used correctly, they are, and they also prevent the spread of most STDs when used correctly), and some include gender stereotypes presented as scientific facts.

I am not in favor of teens having sex. However, as a realist, I recognize that many will be sexually active despite the wishes of adults. To prevent unwanted pregnancies and to prevent the spread of STDs, isn’t it best to let students know that there are a few contraceptive methods available that are effective? I’m not saying each school district should hand out condoms to each student, or that students should prove they can use a condom before being allowed into high school — I’m just suggesting that federally funded sex ed programs should not lie to teenagers about life and death facts. Telling kids that condoms are useless can only increase the prevalence of unprotected sex among teenagers, which can only increase the spread of disease and the number of unwanted pregnancies. And if the federal government is so committed to supporting “a culture of life,” as the President said in his State of the Union address, why can’t they support telling students the truth about safe practices that could save their lives and prevent abortions?

The background: Nicholas Kristof, a NY Times columnist whose columns often focus on gender as a social justice issue, traveled to Cambodia a little over a year ago. There he met some sex-trafficking victims and wrote a few columns about them, describing them as shy and trembling. He bought two of them from their brothels and returned them to their families. He recently returned to Cambodia to see how the two girls were doing. One girl has been moderately successful in a business venture; the other has a methamphetamine addiction and has returned to working in a brothel to support her drug addiction.

And here I am, sitting in judgment.

One, I object to the manner in which these girls were removed. Although Kristof never mentions this in any of his columns, there are several organizations dedicated to the protection of sex-trafficking victims in SE Asia. Public health and social work experts have been doing this kind of work for years. If Kristof had contacted some of these groups, he could possibly have gotten involved in a larger rescue operation, one that would have benefited 50 or 100 girls, not just two. By not involving the groups that work daily to do this rescue work, by not even mentioning them, Kristof has made this his own personal campaign. What if he had mentioned some of these groups and concerned readers could send money to them? What if he had interviewed some of the workers who for years have been removing children from brothels? No, he chose to go it alone, heroic cowboy, and now we can all say oh, what a wonderful man he is.

What a wonderful man. How generous, how unusual, for a white Western educated man to care about the lives of young SE Asian girls. We should all be so grateful to this man for stepping outside his male domain to pay attention to the problems of young brown women in another nation. Right?

Wrong. I know it is unfair to blame Kristof for being a white Western educated male; we can’t help who we’re born to. However, this whole process feels to me like the Big White Man Liberating the Trembling Brown Girls From the Horrors of Their Native Land. If you don’t believe me, listen to his voiceover in some of the multimedia presentations. Dripping with paternalistic pity.

Finally, I know that in order to increase awareness of the problem, we need photos and stories about it — how else would anyone know? — but I feel like a voyeur when these two girls reunite tearfully with their families and the camera zooms in on their faces. That’s a private moment we don’t all need to share. I wonder how the family felt about having their emotions broadcast?

Neocolonialism, even when well-intended, is still not the way to go about liberation operations. (Of course, if people listened to me, then the world would be different…)

In a recent article, I asked how long it would take the newly elected President to make good on his campaign promises. The answer: 20 days.

Tucked into a budget bill that passed both houses of Congress on Nov. 22 was another bill that denies the withholding of federal funding to any healthcare provider or group that does not offer information on or access to abortion. Continue Reading »

What did Britney Spears mean when she (or whoever pulled her puppet strings at that time) said “Hit me baby one more time”?

Did she mean “hit me” like “give me another card, it’s a poker game”?

Or “hit me” like “I am in a violent relationship and I like it”?

Or “hit me” like “have sex with me”?

Update to previous rant on Blockbuster:

They now carry episodes of South Park, which they previously refused to stock because “Blockbuster is a family corporation.”

Now I am having a crisis. I still want to hate Blockbuster with all of my twisted heart, but they have begun to comply with some of my demands for good entertainment.

Crap. It really sucks when you love to hate something and then it changes a little so you can’t blame everything on it anymore.

Well, I can still be pissed off that Blockbuster offers you ten thousand copies of schlocky teenage blonde girl movies and NOTHING interesting at 9 pm on a Friday night when you really want a good action movie and you’re stuck with “Dumb and Dumberer” or “The Princess Diaries: I’m a Princess and You’re a Fat Slob.”

Yes, I can still be pissed off. The world is still worth living in. Thank you.

Okay, let’s do it. Clear the table, I’m gonna give you a topic. Gay marriage. Discuss. Continue Reading »