Leftists, Embrace Survivalism & Preparedness

•December 19, 2009 • 1 Comment

Survivalism has a pretty bad reputation.  And it’s no wonder. The vast majority are right wing nutjobs who hoard guns and can’t wait to shoot looters. They’re convinced the end of the world is coming yet are completely unconcerned about far more deadly issues like heart disease, smoking (which many of them do), pollution (a lot of them are “libertarians”), etc.

I’ve heard some crazy things. When swine flu started hitting the news, one board was full of wild, uneducated claims that martial law would be declared and that everyone was going to die. Yet most of them are too afraid to get the vaccine. That’s just one example. Conspiracy theories and partisan blinders abound. It’s not a fun place.

Still, the idea behind survivalism is a sound one. It’s too bad the idea has been embraced by conservatives, those whose very ideology depends on fear of change. Like it or not, shit happens, and when it does, those who are prepared will be most likely to make it out okay. What the survivalist community lacks, however, is a calm and considered approach. Actually, the survivalist community has a lot of flaws, even aside from the general lunacy. But they’ve got one thing right: prepare. While there’s a good chance  they’ll give themselves heart attacks panicking over every little thing, if something bad does happen, chances are they’ll be the ones left standing. And that, to me, is a scary thought.

So why not embrace a more leftist, rational survivalist philosophy? It doesn’t need to be a lifestyle (I swear, these people flame each other for not being “hardcore” enough) or anything special. But stocking up food, becoming aware of local dangers, and getting involved with your community can’t hurt, can it?

Introducing My New Blog: Sane Survivalism

•December 16, 2009 • 1 Comment

My new side blog can be found here.

As a few of my e-buddies may be aware, I’m a survivalist, though hardly the (correctly) stereotypical right wing nut type. Part out of a paranoid personality, part out of a desire to be useful to others, part out of necessity as a journalist-in-training with an eye on those tougher jobs, and part out of common sense. Most “survivalists” don’t see eye-to-eye with me. The vast, and I mean vast, majority that I’ve encountered have been far right-wing conspiracy theorists, anarcho-capitalists/libertarians, smokers, overweight, gun loving, looter-shooting, global warming denying, zealously partisan and more panicky than I. And trust me, it’s hard to be more panicky than myself.

It’s been a difficult and unsuccessful year or so trying to find any survivalist board with at least a handful of genuine or sane people. I’ve found a few here and there but they’re consistently drowned out by moronic chattering about martial law and looter-shooting. Most survivalists, I imagine, are just as “survivalist” as tea baggers are “revolutionary”.

My reasons for seeking out these boards has always been threefold: keeping tabs on potential threats with an extra source of news, motivation to get my lazy ass up and prepare, and to get feedback on my ideas and actions. Since every board I’ve found so far has been a cesspool of idiocy, it’s time for Plan B: blogging.

The blog is geared both towards serious yet sane survivalists, and those who are casually interested or are perhaps turned off by the nutwing image of survivalists. This means basic guides for the casually interested, theory for the survivalist, and news for both. If you’ve any interest in survivalism sans the conspiracy theories and gun waving, it wouldn’t hurt to take a look and learn a few things.

Palin suggests Obama copied her

•December 11, 2009 • 2 Comments

I think Palin has actually outdone herself, in her comments about President Obama’s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize:

Palin said the president’s remarks had a familiar ring. “I thumbed through my book quickly this morning to say ‘Wow! That really sounded familiar.’ because I talked in book too about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times.”

If there was any doubt left in anyone’s mind, maybe this is the final bit of proof that Palin is just a sad, attention-starved person who got her taste of fame and wanted more. Perhaps it’s just me, but it’s pretty obvious it seems what she’s suggesting: that the President of the United States simply copied her. I really don’t think anyone needs to bother pointing out how silly or irrational this is. That she would suggest it at all shows her disconnect with reality and any sense of decency.

I mean, wow.

Also: there’s an AP style error in the story. Fuck, I’m noticing these things now.

The Victim Oppressors

•December 9, 2009 • 8 Comments

It’s always been easy for the oppressor in oppressor-oppressed relationships to deny the oppression of one group and to claim that they, in fact, are the victims in the situation. This goes for whites and POC, men and women, adults and children, rich and poor, first world and third world, heterosexual and homosexual, Christian and atheist, etc.

Recently, I had a conversation with a white supremist on a post here on Blue Linchpin. The post argued against the common white sentiment that it is racist and unfair that there are no such things as “White History Month”, “White Entertainment Channel”, etc. Because our society is dominated by whites, every month is White History Month, every channel white, every club and society, everything by default white. The response was for a handful of people ready to deny any sort of white privilege and, as usual. These were some of the responses I received, the last being the strongest example:

Most African-Americans and Mexicans exploit this and use it way to much to their advantage. There’s nothing like working for the place I worked for and a black ar Mexican would walk in with their six kids drapped in gold rings and chains and be on welfare, yet you watch where they go when they leave and they are loading up the group of thugs into their pimped out Escalade.

Would anyone care to elaborate on why the prison institutions across the “United” States of America are overwhelmingly populated with minorties?

Do you have any idea what white people went through to create this country. Do you not recall any history as to why we settled in America and the battles to follow?…I say celebrate your race, help your race become the best it can be! Just don’t tell me I can’t do the same for my race because I am a racist.

i think both the content and the presentation of the content shows how educated these people are. Lack of knowledge of history and the causes behind current economic and racial problems causes these sentiments. And last, but definitely not least, we have a post that begins this way:

As a white man in a white country i certainly dont feel superior, if anything i feel oppressed and discriminated for being white.

And it continues (shortened, because the original post consisted of a long, convoluted list):

These problems did not exist 30 years ago. Its only been since non white racial groups who have moved into this country that we have had to feel this way…Now due to immigration of non white people and their demands that we cater for them…we have had…various minorities playing the race card whenever they commit crime on the white australian population, and getting away with it, and in some cases getting compensation!!! I dont have anything against anyone because of the colour of their skin. But i have something against people who live on my tax dollars, commit crime against me and taking away the rights i was born with…I am PROUD to be white, i am PROUD to be Australian. And i will fight to restore the birthrights our grandparents and their parents worked and died to give us. Anyone who cannot be proud of their heritage is a traitor to themselves and their people, and anybody who stands in the way of my happiness, my pride and my constitutional rights will be dealt with accordingly.

The racial situation in Australia is in many ways similar to the racial situation in America. You’ve got a racial group that’s been beaten down and oppressed, had its rights taken away, and through government policies has seen itself blamed for not doing as well as privileged whites. But the interesting thing is, the group this commenter is talking about is the equivalent of Native Americans in America. The Aborigines were originally in Australia when it was colonized. Their land and rights were stripped from them, and they were systematically oppressed through the generations. They were the original Australians.

These are just my closest examples of whites denying privilege and claiming that they are in fact the oppressed group. While it can be argued that, like men, by being put up on a pedestal whites are forced to act a certain way, and that that is oppression, that is not the point being made by either group. There are countless examples of whites claiming to be oppressed by minorities.

So too, often, do men claim to be the oppressed group.

In another post of mine, I talked about my experiences as a woman and the things expected of me. A male commenter felt it well within his rights to deny my experience and that I was just being a drama queen. He then claimed that men, in fact, were the oppressed gender.

WE are the ones exploited, forced to work in boring, mind numbing offices to impress YOU so you can sit at home playing with the kids. How dare YOU have the hubris to assume that YOU have it worse?

After replying to the commenter and promptly identifying his posts as spam, I nevertheless continued to get posts from him attacking other women in the thread who said they had similar experiences. Like privilege-denying whites, he assumed that he was in the right and that the oppressed class was not in fact oppressed but simply overreacting.

POC and women are simply hysterical, obviously. At least, according to misogynist blogger Steve Hall, who responded (avoid clicking the link if you can, most likely the guy’s paid based on views) to the anger over a commercial featuring sexual harassment. Being a man, Steve Hall decided that the commercial was in fact a hilarious joke and that women who were disturbed or angered over the ad simply had “sticks up their asses”. Like the commenter above, Steve Hall felt that he didn’t need to be a woman to know how the ad or sexual harassment felt for a woman. He simply assumed that he knew better and that he had just as valid an opinion on the matter. And to top it all off, he threatened those upset with the ads with sexual harassment and told them to shut up and die.

These aren’t the only forms of oppressors claiming to be the victims. Atheists are well acquainted with the unusual phenomenon of the Christian majority in America claiming to be oppressed whenever it can’t force others to abide by its religious teachings. Members of the middle class complain often about being oppressed by welfare or immigrant workers, without considering that their demand for cheap products is causing these problems.

People like white supremists D (and his imaginary friend), Bill, and misogynists Steve Hall and Wolf, Christians, middle class conservatives, etc, are just examples of the members of oppressive groups which deny their privilege and aggressively set out to set themselves up as the ones being oppressed. Why? I can see the point of denying privilege, aside from avoiding guilt it allows you to continue benefiting from that privilege. But why the stretch, why the fight to make themselves out to be the victims? Maybe it’s guilt, too. Maybe no matter what the position of a group or person, they will always try to see themselves as the underdogs, to feel better about themselves. We can admit that mistakes were made, and we can admit that everyone should be treated as a human being, but for gods sakes why is it so hard to admit privilege?

And Here I Am: Site, Personal Updates

•December 6, 2009 • 2 Comments

The term is coming to an end, as as you may have noticed I’ve had more time on my hands for blogging, bitching, and whatever else that starts with ‘B’ – including some “interesting” conversations with a white supremist and his imaginary friends. I spent this semester as editor-in-chief for a weak, ill-funded community college newspaper I have little love of. Educational, stressful, and time-consuming. I could go on a good rant or ten, but this isn’t the place for it. I have, however, learned a lot about the state of illegal immigrants through the eyes of undocumented students at our school, which has been a wonderful opportunity. Hopefully, when I’ve finished the story, I’ll be able to post it here.

I’m considering signing up to freelance report for The Examiner, after a friend suggested it to me. The idea makes me so nervous – but better to commit and work hard now than never commit, I suppose.

Since blogging has long since stopped being a significant part of my life, and since I’ve been using Google for just about everything, I’ve been considering switching back to Google Blogger. The original reason I left was mostly because of the insane commenting system, which Disqus fixes nicely. Plus, Blogger would let me use HTML, when WordPress doesn’t. I’ve had comrades offer in the past to allow me to host WordPress on their servers, which would fix that problem – but blogging just doesn’t mean enough for me to ask anyone to donate time or effort. I’m still unsure about it, and any feedback would be appreciated.

“Calm Down”, Professional Reporter!

•December 5, 2009 • Leave a Comment

After reading a post at Stuff White People Do in which the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, treated a professional, black Washington reporter like a child while she quizzed him on details of the recent party crash. The moment reporter April Ryan began speaking, Gibbs began rolling his eyes, shaking his head, (literally) waving her off, interrupting her, comparing her to his child, and snapping at her.

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on either Gibbs nor Washington reporting. But as someone who’s watched a few Gibbs press conferences and is a student journalist/editor, I was shocked. I agree with SWPD, Gibbs was definitely patronizing her and it’s likely it was based on race. I can’t recall whether or not Gibbs usually uses first names when speaking to reporters, but even if he didn’t, I know he isn’t that rude to reporters on a regular basis.

Minorities make up 10% of Washington reporters, despite making up (if I remember right) 30% of the total population. The vast majority of the reporters Gibbs deals with are white. I really doubt that April Ryans was the only reporter to have asked about the security breach.

Atheist Meme of the Day: "Atheists Aren’t Open" Is A Bad Argument

•December 4, 2009 • 1 Comment
Scarlet letterToday’s Atheist Meme of the Day, via Greta Christina. Pass this on; or don’t; or edit it as you see fit; or make up your own. Enjoy!

To say that atheists are closed off to the spiritual world is a terrible argument for the existence of that world. All it does is reiterate the very claim being discussed — the claim that there’s a supernatural world to be open to — without offering any evidence for it. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

Apologies

•December 4, 2009 • 28 Comments

As a woman, I am constantly expected to apologize for myself. I am expected to hide any evidence of my existence.

I must scrub this evidence away, spending my precious time making my living space spotless to hide the fact that I live in it. The male members of the household, however, are perfectly entitled to leave their evidence scattered around the house. It isn’t questioned or frowned upon when they do it, but when I do it? It’s shameful. Myself and other women are expected to explode into a frenzy of cleaning, especially when company is coming over, so we can pretend for them that we don’t actually ever do anything in our houses. Why? Does anyone really believe that we keep our houses painstakingly clean every day of our busy lives?

I am expected to hide the fact that I eat at all, especially the fact that I enjoy eating normal, “male” portions. Men can eat as sloppily, as much as they please, without question. I am expected to apologize for eating, to be on a diet, to order tiny portions no one could survive on. When I eat normal portions, I am expected to be ashamed. (A recent example: Eating a handful of baby carrots for breakfast and having my grandmother gawk at me and ask how I could eat so many. I have small hands.)

I’m expected to take up as little space as possible, physically and verbally, and to enjoy being so. I’m expected to be verbally small, and to allow more space for the words of men. I’m expected to apologize for any time I take up space, and to spend time and money working to take up less space. I am considered less ideal if I can be compared to anyone smaller than myself. I’m expected to apologize for having a digestive system, and I’m expected to hide it and suck my belly in. I’m expected to be embarrassed by my size. And I’m average. I’m expected to apologize for being asilent_womanble to reach things.  And I’m not even tall.

I’m expected to apologize for the fact that I live. I’m told to eat less, wear less, and be less. I’m expected all these things by men, women, media, strangers, teachers, friends, and myself. I’m not sorry.

All of the women in these pictures are nevertheless thin and showing little evidence that they’ve lived their lives. Makeup, lighting, and photoshopping hides the evidence. You can’t win them all, I suppose.

Why Liberals Hate Sarah Palin

•November 22, 2009 • 7 Comments

There’s no end to conservative speculation on “why liberals hate Sarah Palin”. And the answers conjured up by conservatives are endless. We’re physically intimidated by her, we’re angry she didn’t abort her child with Downs syndrome, we’re frightened that she’s middle class, and we’re threatened that she isn’t a slut.

Of course, these claims aren’t worth jack shit, considering they’re mere speculation from a group that’s only in the last year discovered sexism and feminism. As Jon Stewart so eloquently said when listening to one of these claims: Fuck you.

Here’s why I hate Sarah Palin: She’s a joke, and she makes a mockery of women across the nation and the globe. By rising to the national scene by simple virtue of her gender (let’s not pretend like McCain actually thought she’d make a good vice president), she cheapened the real progress other women in American politics who’d had to fight their way to gain respect. With her patronizing, folksy, vapid, substance-empty rhetoric, she insulted our intelligence and the intelligence of women everywhere. She is the poorest, yet most visible, example of a successful woman.

How about some women who actually deserve their offices, and treat themselves, their responsibilities, and their people with respect?

How about Yulia Tymoshenko, right, who manages to be beautiful without demeaning herself or her office as Prime Minister of Ukraine? Who campaigned against corruption without winks that burnt up the brain cells of viewers every time? Who increased salaries and benefits for public workers, brought divided people together, and is among the most powerful women in the world? Or perhaps Han Myeong-sook, prime minister of South Korea, who was imprisoned for teaching communist and democratic ideals to the poor and working class, fought for gender equality, and was active in foreign policy? Maybe Dalia Grybauskaitė, president of Lithuania, who earned the nickname “Iron Lady”, who won a landslide victory as an independent with a reputation for staying out of scandals.

But, no, of course. The only kind of female politician possible is one that’s all winks and no answers, and that’s how it should be, and we leftists are crazy for not being in love with her.

Priorities

•November 13, 2009 • 13 Comments

Well, the Catholic Church has done it again. I’m surprised, even as constant cynic and critic of anything Catholic. They’ve officially decided that homosexuality is a bigger problem than starvation, homelessness, etc.

According to the Washington Post:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Let’s not mince words here. The Catholic Church is bullying the U.S. secular legal system by threatening to leave orphans, the homeless, and the ill out of luck if they don’t comply with the Church’s wishes. They’re “unable” to respect the basic rights of human beings who happen to be homosexual, and “unable” to work around married same-sex couples. No surprise there. But at the cost of serving the needy? Really? I thought that was something Catholics prided themselves on.

I’ll fully admit to not knowing the ins-and-outs of Catholic dogma and the Church’s relationship with the U.S. But I can’t imagine how the Church sat down and decided that same-sex marriage was a worse prospect than homelessness, illness, etc.

Are the little old men in the Catholic Church so terrified by the thought of gay couples walking around unabused?

Sources

  1. Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum, Washington Post, November 12.
  2. A very brief glance at passages that may discuss homosexuality, ReligiousTolerance.org