Kanye West’s Torrent of Criticism, Live on NBC

Kanye West’s Torrent of Criticism, Live on NBC: “West: I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, ‘They’re looting.’ You see a white family, it says, ‘They’re looking for food.’ And, you know, it’s been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I’ve tried to turn away from the TV because it’s too hard to watch. I’ve even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I’m calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help — with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way — and they’ve given them permission to go down and shoot us!”

Katrina

I went to Pages to Prisoners tonight and on Monday nights, its mostly students in the service learning program, a program where students get college credit for volunteering with community organizations and writing about/discussing their experience and social issues related to the volunteering or organization. Tonight, Megan, who is the volunteer coordinator, read some news reports and anectdotes from hurricane survivors that talked about the charictarization of crimes like looting, race, class, and prison issues in the wake of the storm. She made the statement, regarding media bias, that most of the people seen on TV are poor and black, which, probably has a lot to do with the population demographics as 67.25% of the city’s residents are Black or African American and 23.2% of individuals living in Orleans Parish living below the poverty level.

This made me think about the more institutionalized issues of race and class. This past week’s This American Life episode asks why so much of the blame for the mishandling of hurricane of humanitarian efforts was placed on state/local authorities. It makes me think about how a whole region could be ill-equipped to deal with catastrophe and that this can go largely ignored because of the demographics of the region. It also makes me think that this makes for an easy scapegoat. Does a region inhabited largely by those marginalized in mainstream society get fewer resources in general? Are their govermental officials more corrupt and more inept? The recent events seem to remind us that this could very well be the case.

Tonight, when talking about prisoners being left locked in some jails and prisons, many students asked, “how could someone just leave another human being there to possibly die?”, and wondered whether prison guards and officials would be held accountable. With my background, and perspective, and politics, I would like to think that in their situation, I would make a more humane, concerned decision. I guess there should be some accountability for individual’s lack of concern for people they watch over or care for, but more than anything, I’m not surprised that when it comes down to making tough decisions and weighing ones own concerns like family, property, and all the other things that comprise one’s life in our culuure and the concerns of those who are pushed to the edge of our culture, that people make bad decisions. I imagine that the low-level people who could have made some decisions to help people weren’t getting a whole lot of guidance from their superiors and the lack of anticipation or taking responsibility for taking care of prisoners or the homeless, elderly, and hospitalized probably reflects an institutionalized disregard on a local level. Again, the national response, whether from the government, media, or people on the street that localizes the blame for all the tragedies is equally representative. I think that we’re all pretty ill-equipped to have concern for others, and as we get caught up in notions of race and class, it makes this even harder. Its sad.

gas out

someone sent this to the defiance, ohio e-mail account:

PUT IT ON YOUR CALENDAR FILL UP ON THE 6TH OF SEPTEMBER 2005 AND NO GAS ON THE 7TH, 8TH, OR 9TH 2005 TIRED OF THE GAS PRICES?? Let’s all stand up and makea
statement – we won’t pay these prices.

Please fill up on the 6th of September 2005 and don’t buy gas on the 7th, 8th or 9th. Have a great week! Years back on April 30,1999 a gas-out was staged across Canada and the U.S. to bring the price of gas down, and it worked. It’s time to do something again. Only this time lets make it for three days instead of just one. The so-called oil cartel decided to slow production to drive up gasoline prices.

Let’s see how many Canadian/American people we can get to band together for a three-day period in September, NOT TO BUY ANY GAS! OLINE, during those three days. LETS HAVE A GAS OUT—-September 7th, 2005 TO September 9th, 2005. Buy what you need before these dates– or after– but none during this time period. If you want to help, just send this to everyone you know and ask them to do the same. We brought the prices down once before, and we can do it again. Come on North America lets stand together to make a difference!

Even if you receive this 100 times keep passing it around, this way you know everyone is being informed and no one will forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!

notes

Renee wanted to know how to get a copy of Windows XP. It looks like IU students can get it for $10 on CD from IMU 074.

I had to return The Confusion to the library. I was on p. 350 in the section where Eliza was using a masque with party guests as unwilling actors for describing how to get silver into England to pay soliers as part of the French/Irish invading forces.

voting, again

When Brian was through on his Dance of Dogs puppet tour, he brought the newest issue of our friend Kane’s zine that had an article giving an anarchist/anti-authoritarian perspective on voting (and punk rock bands/figures supporting voting), making the familiar and mostly sound arguments about the problems inherent in voting and how utterly disappointing the platforms of viable candidates tend to be.

I was listening to the August 15, 2005 episode of Rust Belt Radio which had a segment about the Leauge of Pissed Off Voters. I think I have written in the past about being impressed with this organization after seeing a representative talk at Boxcar Books last year.

The Rust Belt Radio interview of a Leauge representative mentioned, though somewhat indirectly, what I think is cool about this group. Certainly, I liked how they organized non-hierarchically and did a very good job or reaching out to youth in groups traditionally marginalized in politics, but what I really like about the group is how they add some new perspective to the “voting doesn’t work” debate. A common objection to voting is that the candidates are indistinguishable from each other in terms of platform and voting record and that one’s vote only validates the candidates continued bad judgement. The way the League works is that it publishes a voting guide based on progressive values. This happens at a grass-roots level (i.e. organizers in each city, such as Columbus, OH, which I thought had a very nicely constructed voting guide, research and construct a guide) and anyone can submit a guide through their website. They then allow people to report whether they voted based on the guide and then contact candidates with information like the number of voters who voted based on the guide and also the rationale for endorsing various candidates. The benefit of this is that it gives additional value to ones vote because it shows candidates that you, along with hundreds or thousands of others voted a certain way, for instance, not because you supported certain policies, but because you viewed them as a lesser of two evils, or they can see that you supported other candidates, specifically because they were truly progressive in their platform or track record. Provided that enough people express their voting choices in this matter, it could shift the policies of mainstream candidates, or at least offer encouragement to losing candidates who had a cool platform or have been traditionally progressive. Essentially, your vote goes from an categorical support of a candidate to something that reflects more of the subtleties and concerns of an individual or small group. If one feels like the politics or decision criteria of the Leauge isn’t radical enough, there certainly isn’t anything stopping people from copying their model.

I still feel that voting is a pretty marginal tool for social change, but I think with groups like the League of Pissed Off Voters doing what they do, some of the more common arguments for not taking the few hours of researching issues and candidates and the few hours at the polling place don’t hold as much water.