The Destruction of the Middle Class

Below is the story of a woman named Roz who has been hit HARD by the housing crisis and the economic crisis. She lives in Monrovia, which is a suburb of Los Angeles, California. Her words shed light on the impact of these troubled times on an American family that just one year ago was fine. Her story also sheds light into the hypocrisies of our public assistance system (also known as welfare), which has been structured to only provided services and aid to the most desperate members of our society, while leaving others--such as people who have been successful members of the middle class that now find themselves struggling to get by--high and dry.

WE THE PEOPLE--people like you, me and Roz, are the ones paying for broken healthcare and welfare systems that we aren't even eligible to apply for when we actually need to use them.

Now that the economic recession is getting deeper, there will no doubt be a rise in people like Roz who have been paying for public assistance programs for years, but now in their time of need are finding themselves ineligible to apply for programs that could ease thier pains in troubled times.

It is a very sad and backwards situation. Whoever becomes the next President MUST deal with these issues.

The following video is a relevant segment from last night's Presidential debates, which is a discussion about what each of the candidates plans to do about our failing economy:

So now, onward to Roz's blog entry.

Please read her words to better understand a personal viewpoint of this ROYAL MESS we have gotten ourselves into.

THE TIME HAS COME FOR US TO ALL START WORKING TOGETHER, CARING ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORS, AND REALIZING THAT THEIR STORIES ARE OUR STORIES!!!!!

Click the title of this blog post to link to her original blog post on KCET's SoCal blog.

Thank you!

You Can Call Me Roz

By Roz Lee
September 25, 2008 6:33 PM

Over the next few weeks, Roz Lee, who you met in a SoCal Connected

segment called Down But Not Out will be blogging about her search for

work on SoCal Connected.

You can call me Roz. I am a thirty-two year-old, 80's-loving (because

let's face it- those were the best times on Earth), movie-going, God-fearing,

fun-loving, love-giving, single, professional, and happy mother of two.

Originally from Asbury Park New Jersey. I've been a resident of sunny

Southern Cali for 26 years now. Currently, I live with my domestic partner

of 7 years (and the proud father of our children) in Monrovia, Ca.

I have worked all my adult life. I remember my first job. It was a blast. I

was 17 years old, and I worked just blocks away from my alma mater,

Hollywood High Performing Arts Magnet. (Go Sheiks!) Anyway, when

I received my first paycheck, I remember exactly what I did with it: I

bought an outfit, a ponytail extension (don't laugh), and a ticket for the

first annual 92.3 The Beat Summer Jam--ya'll remember those? It was

so much fun. I met and hung out with Tupac Shakur after the show with

my friends. In hindsight, probably not so good an idea, but we were

safe, respected, and had the best time of our lives. And I had made it

all possible! Once I got a taste of making my own money, and being

able to set the course for things I wanted to do, have, and experience,

I decided that I LOVED to work. I had not been without a job since

then...until now.

In March of 2007, almost a year after my mother's passing, I received

notice that I was being laid off from my $70k+ a year job as a training

manager for a major Insurance brokerage firm. It happens all the time,

right? And I felt, too, that things would be okay. I mean, I received a

great package. I had a couple of weeks, even, to channel my inspirations

towards where I wanted to go from there. It felt like a very free time in

my life, if that makes sense. I felt liberated, and inspired. I was powerful

because I had the freedom of choice. I could choose to do anything I

wanted to do! It's a great feeling for a time. Yet, here we are almost 2

years later, and I still have not held a solid position since. What's

happening? What's going on?

Maybe my story sounds familiar to you. Perhaps you, too, are seeing

changes in the organizational structure at your job, and are wondering

what you are going to do if you should loose your job. Perhaps you are

working and busting your tail everyday for a paycheck that still cannot

seem to scratch the surface of all your financial needs. Whatever your

story, at the center of it, mine is the same. Fortunately for me, there is

such a thing as grace and mercy!

I have been in the process of actively seeking aid for my situation. I

hope these blog postings will help keep you in the loop of my progress

towards re-claiming my piece of middle class America. I just want to

work hard, make a contribution, live life, and take care of my family.

We don't ask for much, do we? Journey with me, and let me hear your

story, too. You never know what your words can inspire.

To see comments on Roz's blog, *click here*

TED TALKS: Brilliant People Coming Together to Share Their Mind's Work

Please watch each of these videos all the way through.  They are very interesting, and each part of each talk has a different - yet equally valuable - point to make.

These talks have been included on this blog because they touch on issues of:

Globalization, security, morality, conservative vs. liberalism, the existence of peace within each of us and the capacity of each of us to live moral, creative, beautiful lives of PEACE.

*About* TED talks:

"TED stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design.  It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds.  Since then its scope has become even broader.

The annual conference now brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes)"

Here are the videos within this blog:

1.   My Stroke of Insight - Jill Bolte Taylor

2.   The Real Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives - Jonathan Haidt

3.   Security and Insecurity - Eve Ensler

4.   Do Schools Today Kill Your Creativity? - Sir Ken Robinson

My Stroke of Insight:

The Real Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives:

(Watch all of this one. He starts off critical of Conservatives but ends up recognizing the importance of conservativism to balancing liberal thought)

Do you think Obama and/or Biden fit with Haidt's analysis of liberalism?  Why or why not?  Is that a good or a bad thing?

Do you think McCain and/or Palin fit with his analysis of conservativism?  Why or why not?  Is that a good or a bad thing?

Security and Insecurity:

Do Schools Today Kill Your Creativity?:

So.......what do you think of what these people have to say?

NOTE: If you click on the title of this blog, you will be directed to the TED Talks homepage.

Obama IS America! Editor Opinion: Steps to Save the Environment and...Population Control?

So I was out watching the **debates** tonight (more on that later), and ended up stopping by a friend's place who had about 20 people over for a debate watching party.  At some point in the evening, I ended up having a conversation with one of the guys there about the moral implications of trying to control population growth by making a series of world wide laws that limit how many children someone can have.  Randomly, I came home tonight and was browsing the internet for different tidbits of information and came across the following article.  The main part discusses two easy ways to be more environmentally friendly.  However, in the comments section, they get into a whole discussion on the topic of population control.

As I thought this was a very strange coincidence indeed, and the article and comments section are both interesting and relevant to what is going on in the world today, I am posting them below for your reading pleazzzuuure.

To be directed to the article itself, click on the title of this blog.

BUT BEFORE WE CONTINUE!!  Here are two short video clips for thought:

During the debates, McCain rarely looked at Obama. Here's a discussion on what it might have meant:

Sarah Palin on her foreign policy experience, as articulated in her interview with Katie Couric (yes, I know, more on Sarah Palin, can't help it, sorry...):

Below, please find the article and commentary first discussed:

Don't Have a Cow

On small steps with big impacts

BY UMBRA FISK

24 Sep 2008

Read more about: advice | air travel | Ask Umbra | carbon offsets | ecological footprint |green living | greenhouse-gas emissions | vegetarianism and veganism | all of these topics

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS | share/bookmark

Send your green-living questionsto Umbra.

Dear Umbra, 

This year my family is not in the position to make any major CO2-reducing changes. We will not be purchasing a new car, a smaller house, or more efficient appliances. And honestly, with two small children living in a suburb, public transportation is not a realistic option. Still, we'd like to reduce our carbon footprint and help the environment. Would you be able to point out other meaningful, smaller changes we could make? Thanks for your guidance.

Tara H.
Indianapolis, Ind.

Dearest Tara,

Don't abandon hope for significant greenhouse-gas reductions. If your life is anything approaching the typical American's, there are at least two major CO2-reducing changes still within your grasp. You can't drive less, buy a better car, or make any major home investments, but you can probably eat less meat and avoid the airport. Conventional meats and air travel are two personal climate impact behemoths.

Take a bite out of clime.

Four people flying round trip from Indianapolis to Cancún would emit 9,856 pounds of CO2 (by comparison, a typical family car emits about 12,000 pounds of CO2 in a year. The Environmental Defense Fund estimates that if all Americans switched from their current diets to going meat-free one day a week, it would be equivalent to removing 8 million American cars from the roads. Another way to look at the meat delete option is through the calculations offered by the Pacific Institute, which estimates that a skimpy 40-gram pile of hamburger (about 1.5 ounces worth) causes 790 to 1,500 grams of CO2 emissions. If you calculate how many grams of burgers your family usually eats and add it all up, you can get an idea of your yearly beef-induced emissions; you can also estimate your travel emissions by using any number of online calculators.

May I presume, however, that budget is a limiting factor for you? Eating lower on the food chain -- and, of course, eschewing the hella-expensive cost of an airline ticket -- are quite kind to the pocketbook, unlike the upfront costs of the new auto and home improvements you mention above. In fact, if you don't currently fly due to economics, pat yourself on the back -- your footprint is already lower than many Americans'. A big sticking point on following this prescription, though, is that flying and meat-eating (among other high-carbon callings) are often undertaken for pleasure. To ease any resistance you may have to foregoing things you enjoy, remember: In situations where habit change is hard, we start with Less, not None. 

I want to once again mention Mark Bittman's New York Times article about eating less meat (I'm going through a Mark Bittman phase). Unlike yours truly, Bittman can avoid the Why and go directly to the How, and (also unlike yours truly) he is a cooking expert. His suggestions include reducing portion size (the USDA, for one, recommends only about five or six ounces of meat each day); he also advises using other protein sources, eating less protein overall, ordering differently at restaurants, and serving less-meaty dishes that are so delicious they're a pleasure unto themselves.

Sign up for Ask Umbra email alerts, sent twice a week.

Email address:

Zip/postal code:

 - 

More email alerts | Privacy

As to flying -- if indeed you or yours partake in such an activity -- there is a straightforward way to reduce, and a slightly complicated way too (or probably several, but for now I'm just mentioning one). If your family typically flies for one vacation and two visits to see the extended family, cut out one of these trips or substitute a less carbonaceous (bus! train! llama!) travel method. I don't have much experience with business travel, but I do know that video conferencing and trip consolidation are also useful when it comes to reducing business miles flown. If you cannot trim the number of annual plane trips, whether for business or for family, see if you can curtail the emissions on your flights through clever flight choices. Direct flights are better than indirect flights, because take-off and landing burn the most fuel. A strong aviation emissions calculator, such as Atmosfair, will help you compare various routes and emissions costs as you shop for tickets.

As you see, your family need not feel environmentally helpless or stumped. These two tweaks alone could make a great difference -- unless you are already land-bound vegetarians. In which case, write back and we'll talk about different changes.

Affably,
Umbra

Read more about: advice | air travel | Ask Umbra | carbon offsets | ecological footprint |green living | greenhouse-gas emissions | vegetarianism and veganism | all of these topics

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS | share/bookmark

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

< Previous

Article: Nice Bailout, Now Pay for It

MONEYBOX: COMMENTARY ABOUT BUSINESS AND FINANCE.

Nice Bailout. Now Pay for It!CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT FAVOR A $700 BILLION WALL STREET BAILOUT, BUT THEY'RE AFRAID TO SAY HOW THEY'LL PAY FOR IT.

By Daniel Gross
Posted on Slate.com

Monday, Sept. 22, 2008, at 5:21 PM ET

 Chat with this story's author on Washingtonpost.com.

To spend is to tax, as capitalist deity Milton Friedman is said to have put it. If so, over the last several months, we've seen an orgy of tax increases and potential increases. Time was, that prospect would have set off a revolution.

Consider the spree of actions that have the potential—directly and indirectly—to cost taxpayers money: the government accepting $30 billion of Bear Stearns' drecky collateral for a $29 billion loan to JPMorgan, giving investment banks access to the discount window, assuming responsibility for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, guaranteeing money market funds (up to $50 billion), making a big loan to AIG (up to $85 billion), and now proposing the mother of all bailouts—up to $700 billion.

It's difficult to quantify the costs of these activities for a few reasons. Even though the government has now formally agreed to guarantee the debt of Fannie and Freddie, the White House says it doesn't see the necessity—shock me!—to include the cost of doing so in the budget. In theory, Hank Paulson could drive a good bargain in buying hundreds of billions of dollars of distressed assets. As a result, the government could recoup a lot of the costs of the latest bailout proposal. And most of the other efforts are loans, which are designed to be paid back. To get a sense of how good the government thinks the credit risks are, the Federal Reserve is charging AIG (until last week, a Dow component) an interest rate of three-month LIBOR plus 8.5 percent—about 11.4 percent. That's a lower rate than many credit-card customers pay but a higher rate than most junk-rated companies pay. But it's almost certain that all these bailouts will cost taxpayers tens of billions, possibly hundreds of billions, of dollars. Unless the laws of mathematics are repealed, we will have to pay this money back in the form of higher taxes or lower government spending.

But have you heard anyone in authority asking about the $700 billion bailout: How do you propose to pay for it?

There seems to be a center-based consensus that some form of bailout is of vital importance to the nation's economy, to its image, and to the global financial system. I agree. But important national projects are worth paying for. Especially when the projects in question are a sop to an industry that has asked for—and received—so much from Washington in the past decade. Think about everything Wall Street has been given since the late 1990s: cuts in the capital-gains tax, dividend tax, and estate tax; cuts in marginal income tax rates; free-trade agreements; low interest rates; light regulation. The promise was that doing the bidding of the financial-services industry would deliver solid growth and boost incomes for everyone. It didn't. This business cycle, in which job growth was generally anemic, ended with median incomes about where they were at the end of the last business cycle. The S&P 500 is basically where it was 10 years ago. Sure, we got cheap mortgages, all the credit we could eat, and some higher corporate income-tax payments for a few years. But now Wall Street wants it all back in the form of bailouts.

So anybody who pops up on television, or in a congressional hearing, to talk about the vital necessity of this regrettable bailout should be asked to give a sense of how much it might cost and then to come up with a way to pay for it. Two-hundred-billion dollars? Fine, please delineate $200 billion in spending cuts over the next two years or $200 billion in tax increases to pay to clean up your mess. Which Cabinet-level agency should be zeroed out? Which benefits programs cut? Which component of the defense budget gutted? I'd love to hear what former Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld, or President Bush (who continues to cower behind Paulson's large frame), or Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack, whose butts were just saved, have to propose. After all, every dollar spent by the taxpayers cleaning up Wall Street's mess is one more added to the massive and expanding deficit, one more dollar that will have to be paid back with interest.

There are some ideas out there. Jesse Eisinger of Portfolio hasfloated a tax on securities transactions. Another possibility would be to make the bailed-out companies self-insure against their own incompetence, the way banks have done with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. And, of course, Congress should abolish the exemption that allows private-equity and hedge-fund managers to pay low capital-gains-tax rates for the money they earn managing other people's money.

It may seem silly to ask about the long-term budgetary implications of bailouts in the time of an emergency. When a fire engine is racing toward a four-alarm blaze, nobody stops to worry that speeding will put wear and tear on the engine. And what's another few hundred billion dollars of debt on top of a national debt that already reaches $9.7 trillion? But to not ask this question would be acting recklessly with other people's money. Which is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Send your suggestions for how to pay for the bailout toMoneybox@slate.com, and we'll publish some of the best. E-mails may be quoted by name unless the writer specifically requests otherwise.

Obama IS America! Poses a Question

When was the last time you looked, without judgement, at all the faces of all the people passing you as you walk down the street?

Please feel free to respond to this in any way you see fit

The Economy, McCain, and White Privilege

Bush's claim, just a few days ago that - despite the obvious economic meltdown -that the economy is still strong.  He is obviously delusional:

If anyone watched CSPAN this morning, NO ONE supports the $7, 000, 000, 000 bailout package as it is now.  Actually, the Democrats attacked the idea of a bailout with no strings attached, even if there is a bailout of some form, and the Republicans didn't even mention the bailout.

Bush administration economic principles stemming from Republican philosophy is what made this mess in the first place.  It therefore makes no sense that Republican party members would not now try to help get us out of this mess.  

Bipartisanship needs to come from everyone, not just John McCain.  He should be working harder within his party to push for reforms that will truly be beneficial.

As it stands now, THERE ARE NO STRINGS ATTACHED TO BUSH BAILOUT.  No oversight, no regulation, just handing the (taxpayer's) money over and hoping for the best.

The Bush Administration wants to just HAND OUT $7, 000, 000, 000 to Wall Street.  And pass it off as a 'rescue package'.  

Since when do CEO's who throw away other people's money, get fired, and earn disgustingly enormous severance packages for being fired and messing up the economy in the first place?

 

However, for the rest of the American people:

Paychecks today are $300 less than 4 years ago

Healthcare is up more than $2000

Mortgages are up by over $800

etc.

For people who earn between $25,000 and $50,000, which often to cover expenses for more and sometimes many more than one person, these fees are outrageously unaffordable.  And if the economy gets worse, its going to get infinitely harder for everybody.

Lets not build slums in our cities.  McCain economic policies would weaken programs and institutions originally intended to strengthen American citizens into waste dumps, while giving enormous tax cuts and more money to people for whom 'money ain't no thang'

And the majority of people reading this do not have to be reminded of the fact that THE BAILOUT DOES NOT APPLY TO US.  If it goes through, alllll these expenses will skyrocket.

If it goes through unregulated, we may quite see another Great Depression.  And WHY would we do that to ourselves?

Senator McCain does not know much about the economy.

He believes that if you earn $5, 000, 000 a year, you are MIDDLE CLASS

Here is a question that someone can provide an answer for, if they have any ideas:

How is it CONCEIVABLE that that someone who (it is documented) has voted 90% of the time with Bush can be expected to run the economy any differently than this past administration??

How is it even CONCEIVABLE that someone who (it is documented) has voted 90% of the time with Bush can possibly have the level of popularity that he does?

Here's one explanation that's a twist from what you might have expected.

According to Tim Wise, the answer is White Privilege. 

The following is an article entitled "Your Nation on White Privilege," written by Tim Wise, a (White) blogger who has taken up arms against racism and White privilege, since he argues that it is keeping us locked in a box to nowhere.

This is Your Nation on White Privilege (Updated)

September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm

By Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”


White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), you're a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to safeguard American institutions.


White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.


White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.


White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives near Russia, you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.


White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”


White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.


White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36-minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected. 

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.


White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.


White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and Harvard Business School (George W. Bush), and still be seen as an "average guy," while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then Harvard Law, makes you "uppity" and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks. 

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.), and that's OK, and you're still cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office. 

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you then go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly 20 years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."

White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you may have sold drugs at some point. 

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you dangerously naive and immature.

White privilege is being able to say that you hate "gooks" and "will always hate them," and yet, you aren't a racist because, ya know, you were a POW, so you're entitled to your hatred, while being black and noting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot. 

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.

 

(Red Room Editor's Note: This online community of writers welcomes all the new members who have found us by way of Tim Wise's thought-provoking entries and who have taken the time to comment. We encourage you to read Tim's follow-up here, and to discover all the other great writing on other Red Room blogs and original articles.)

• Login Or register To Post Comments
 
• Send To A Friend
 
• RSS
 
• Bookmark With:
 
• 
 
• 
 
• 
 
• 

Tags: 

• rant

 

 

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

• Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S., and has been called, "One of the most brilliant, articulate and courageous critics of white privilege in the

• Continue Reading »

INFLUENCES

• James Baldwin, Mab Segrest