In the annual Runnymede Race Debate our panel debate the limits of free speech.
Speakers: Sunder Katwala, director, British Future; Catherine Fieschi, director, Counterpoint; Nigel Warburton, philosopher and author of Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction; and Kirsty Hughes, chief executive, Index on Censorship
Myself along with others Members of The Society of Young Black Philosophers (Quayshawn Spencer and Luvell Anderson) presented at the Diversity In Philosophy Conference on the Status of Blacks in Philosophy. It took place at the University of Dayton in Ohio. Our presentation was well received.
I learned so much, met some great people, and had some much fun thanks in part to program committee member, University Host, and SYBP member Dr. Denise James. Here are some pics.
Howard McGary (Race and Inclusion)
Marianna Ortega (intersectionality)
Denise James and Luvell Anderson
Myself and Quayshawn Spencer
LGBTQ Intersectionality
Challenging & Deliberating about the Cannon
“Implicit Bias & Stereotype Threat”
Nancy McHugh on “Pedagogical Relocation”. Biasly I loved this talk because she spoke about teaching philosophy in prisons. For more info on this check out, The Inside Out Prison Exchange Network.
I’ve enjoyed you all this semester. Now relax for the summer. Below is our class picture.
Angela Davis recently spoke at the University of Chicago for the CSRPC Annual Public Lecture and CSGS Classics in Feminist Theory Series. Her Lecture was entitled Feminism and Abolition: Theories and Practices for the 21st Century. Check out the video below.
This is a pretty awesome idea. Two of the most perplexing writers of gender and sexuality, Butler and Foucault, is explained through conversations with cats and Hipsters. (Courtesy of BINARYTHIS).
As I am sitting here doing my morning writing and internet surfing, I came across a cool video. Matthew Winkler, author of The Bloomberg Way: A Guide for Reporters and Editors, takes us on a historical journey to answer the question: Who Invented Writing in this TEDed animated video. His answer may surprise you.
Can you believe it? Some folks got together and decided to do a musical about Rawls’ political philosophy treatise, “A theory of Justice”. Yes, there actually is a musical filled with melodies about the veil of ignorance, the original position, and principles of justice. It bought me back to the day when my colleague Sophia Wong played a Rawls inspired piece for me on my piano. I love it when philosophy meets art and comedy. You can watch the trailer and purchase the online viewing experience here.
Rebecca Riley-Cooper gives us a run down of the musical at Philosophers Magazine. Here’s an excerpt:
The story follows a diffident, tweedy Professor John Rawls who – alongside the object of his desires, the beautiful but elusive Fairness – travels back in time and meets political philosophers of the past. He is pursued by his nemesis and archrival Robert Nozick, who aims to foil Rawls’s plan to write a new and groundbreaking theory of justice. Along the way, the great thinkers share their theories with Rawls in surprising and hugely comical ways: a ventriloquist Plato preaches to the masses at the agora through his dummy, Socrates; ruffian Thomas Hobbes and gentleman John Locke engage in a furious rap battle over the details of life in the state of nature; and a charmingly naïve and tender barbershop quartet of utilitarians espouse their morality of maximising happiness.
All of these scenes are so cleverly and originally interpreted that, as well as being utterly hilarious, they have real pedagogical value. As the oversensitive, childlike utilitarians sang to make themselves feel happy, and cried when hearing of someone else’s unhappiness, through my giggles I wondered why I had never thought of utilitarianism in that way before.
Given the paucity of women in the canon and the neglect of gender politics by most philosophers, I had wondered how the show would deal with this. So I was delighted to see Mary Wollstonecraft and her backing singers of Emmeline Pankhurst and Catharine Macaulay arrive to lambast the men for their disregard for women’s equality (and amused when Rawls dismissively promises to deal with the family in a later chapter).
While there were many excellent performances, for me the show was stolen by the evil libertarian duo of smooth and dastardly Nozick, played by Luke Rollason, and the terrifying dominatrix Ayn Rand, played by Clare Joyce. Their seductive and slightly deranged tango, in which Rand extols to Nozick the virtues of selfishness, was my highlight of the show. But special mention must also go to David Wigley as Rawls’s drag queen fairy mother, Immanuel Kant, who in a climactic scene worthy of a reality television montage, shows Rawls that the theory of justice he has been searching for won’t be found in the outside world; he must search within (but using his reason, and not his emotions, of course).
To create something that has both philosophical accuracy and genuine comedy is no mean feat, and yet Eylon Aslan-Levy, Ramin Sabi and Tommy Peto have somehow managed to write a script that has both, by the bucket load.
Recently I hosted and organized an event at John Jay College called the Long Shadow of Incarceration’s Stigma. The purpose of the event was to get people thinking about the collateral consequences of incarceration and what they can do to help ease the stigma. We had a super turn out, awesome panelists, and a brilliant and engaged audience.
You can view the full discussion below, along with Pics.
##
I have a new article at the Huffington Post called “Gays and the Myth of The Christian Minority”. In it I argue that the so-called persecution of Christians who oppose homosexuality is a myth. Not only do I critique this claim but I also offer up reasons for why this is a good time for our democracy.
It’s been real and its been fun. I enjoyed your hard work, enthusiasm, sense of humor and insight you bought to the course. Have a great summer and don’t act awkward if we bump into each other next semester. 🙂
The folks at Public Philosophy Network in New York City has a cool conversation series happening on the East Side. They are bringing philosophy to the public, the way it’s suppose to be. Check out the schedule below for some interesting topics. Then go to the bar with an open mind and talk/think your heart out.
For more info, visit NYCPPN.org.
The United States imprisons more people than any other nation in the world. An estimated 700,000 people are released from prison in the United States every year. Where do they all go? How do they imagine their lives? How do they find employment, housing, education and reunite with their families?
Please join The Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics for a screening of the documentary short film “The Long Shadow of Incarceration’s Stigma” followed by an Open Dialogue with panelists and attendees on Collateral Consequences of Mass Incarceration.
Join us for a discussion on the experience of reentry, the stigma formerly incarcerated persons endure while reentering society after release from prison in the United States, and what we can do to erase the stigma.
Panel Discussion and Q&A session will follow the film with:
Sheila Rule (Founder and Executive Director of Think Outside The Cell)
Douglas E. Thompkins,PhD (Sociology, John Jay College)
Bianca Van Heydoorn (Director of Education Initiatives, Prisoner Reentry Institute)
Rebecca Greenberg, Esq. (The Bronx Defenders)
Ismael Cedeno (The Fortune Society and The National Reentry Resource Center)
“The Long Shadow of Incarceration’s Stigma” was produced by photographers Jessica Dimmock, Ashley Gilbertson, Ron Haviv, Ed Kashi and Supervising Producer Kimberly Soenen.
For more information about this event, contact The Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics at 212-237-8033 or Myisha Cherry at mcherry@jjay.cuny.edu. To RSVP, visit http://www.stigma.eventbrite.com
My new business cards with words from Franz Fanon, Angela Davis, and W.E.B. Dubois on the back.
I’ve written so many posts on Angela Davis that I don’t know where to start. I respect her intellectually and always admire her passion to refuse to allow knowledges to stay within the ivory tower but to see it in the world through activism. There is a new documentary film about her in theaters NOW on her life, specifically her trial called “Free Angela Davis and All Political Prisoners.” It is directed by Shola Lynch and is brilliant, very informative, and also inspiring. I went to see it Friday night in Times Square and it was sold out. I’ve never been both disappointed and so happy at the same time. Saturday I finally got the chance to view it in Harlem.
I think the biggest take away that I got from the film is the sadness in which the government will organize to shut down and silence the voices of people. It is also a reminder how the power of the people can defeat their efforts. That is why it is important that we spread the word about this film.
Unfortunately is is only playing in Theaters starting April 5 in Detroit, NY, Oakland, LA, Philadelphia, DC, Atlanta and Chicago at AMC Theaters. But with enough support we can help it spread to other cities.You can check out an interview with Angela Davis about the film at HuffPost Live as she discusses the historical events and how she feels today about being an icon. Also, it is executive produced by Jay-Z and Jada Pinkett Smith as well. Click here to hear Jada discuss working on the film.
I had the opportunity to attend the Beyond The Bars Criminal Justice Conference at Columbia University this weekend. The weekend event kicked off Friday night with a lecture by Angela Davis and Marc Lamont Hill. Saturday, was a host of panels that were both informative and inspiring. I truly enjoyed the “Alternatives to Punishment Paradigm” panel moderated by Glenn Martin from the Fortune Society. I also enjoyed the “Prison to College Pipeline” panel moderated by Susan Sturm. I got the chance to meet some interesting individuals and groups who are doing some great work in criminal justice like College and Community Fellowship who provides educational services and support to formerly incarcerated women. I also met Harry who created an interesting urban community food project at the Urban Rebuilding Initiative for at-risk youth and formerly incarcerated individuals. Good Job to my former colleague Cheryl Wilkins and the whole Columbia School of Social Work and also their partners for putting together an awesome conference.
This is pretty amazing. The People at Shared Worlds created a project called Hand In Hand. People working on the project asked fiction writers to scribble writing advice on their hands. This is what they came up with.
Filmmaker Kevin R. Breen created a video called “Richard Dawkins Dies” which is “a delightfully South-Park-esque confrontation between Dawkins and God as the two engage in a smack-down at the heart of the creationism vs. evolution quasi-debate”, according to BrainPickings. Now the video is South-Park-esque, so that means it has profanity and could be perceived as profane. So if you are too religious and think God is in the business of striking people down, you may not want to view it.
BUT if you want to wrestle not just with evolution vs creationism but with some interesting philosophy of religion questions (i.e. the irony of the nature of an Old Testament God, the problem of what god to believe in, belief in light of a concealing god, the problem of punishment because of lack of belief), I recommend you take a watch. Dont worry, its safe. If it wasnt, I would not be writing to you now… because I would be dead due to thunder bolts. But I am, so enjoy and discuss.
I have a new Op-Ed in the Huffington post this week called “The Politics of Emotional Dismissal”. Here’s an excerpt below. Check out the full article here and leave a comment on the site if you can.
Let me preface: This is not a man-bashing reflection. What I am arguing is that anger has its proper place in the political sphere and because of this; some should not have privileged access to anger while another person’s anger is dismissed.
I do not hold the view that anger or emotions in general are irrational. I believe that they are very much connected to the political life and rationality. Anger has an appropriate and productive moral dimension and should be reclaimed no matter who possesses it. I call this anger, “proper.” Proper anger is distinct from blind and destructive anger because it is not immoral. “Proper” implies that it is selfless, consistent with a high moral value system, promotes the preservation of one’s self and community, and is non-violent. This proper moral anger is appropriate upon witnessing unethical behavior and is appropriate upon witnessing an injustice. Proper anger is useful because it recognizes injustices, inspires deliberation and eventually can serve as a catalyst for justice. So when one dismisses another’s proper anger by perceiving that person or group as crazy, or by suggesting it is merely them being passionate, I believe it is a political tool to silence voices and to halt the democratic project we profess so much to believe in.
.
Its Sunday and that means I am doing nothing but watching NetFlix. However, while being lazy I think I just saw one of the best documentaries with the best messages Ive seen in a while. I do not w
ant to give it away here. The film is called Kumare. You can check out the trailer here, the film maker’s intriguing TED talk here, and a cool Time Magazine Video Interview here.
I must say the film teaches one of the most valuable lessons of spirituality through the most profane way one could imagine. Dont allow the previous videos make you think its a light matter, the ending will surprise you and have you thinking. Without trying to sound like Ebert and Siskel, I give this documentary two thumbs up. Its something I think you should watch the next time you get into a netflix lazy mood. If you get the chance to, lets chat about it in the comment section below.
A lot of us hate to be criticized. No one likes to be told that their idea sucks or they are not living up to their potential, that they are not doing what they are suppose to, or they are not as good as they thought they were. Criticism can hurt and scar you if you let it. But if we are open to constructive criticism, studies show we will be more productive, profound, and just overall better. Im slowly but surely learning this in regards to my research and personal life. Im realizing that good philosophy requires criticism and that criticism is making me a better writer and thinker.
As this amazing video suggests, “when we dont criticize we float on the superficial surface of the imagination… Criticism wakes us up and invigorate us…. The imagination is not shy or fragile. Those who debate and dissent come up with more ideas.” If that is the case, you should go and grab some friends and colleagues who dont mind offering up constructive criticism. Dont be afraid to return the favor. Im pretty sure brillance will come about as a result.
** I was given permission by my student to retell the following story.
So in my intro to philosophy course at LIU we just finished wrappng up personal identity. For a few sections we compared physicalism (which says that we are only a body) and dualism (which believes we are made up of a body and soul/mind). After talking about physicalism for one class, we then turned to the dualist, Descartes. Descartes is the guy whose famous for saying, “I think, therefore I am”. Well, after presenting several of his arguments for dualism, I then had my students critique his argument. And this is where it gets interesting.
STUDENT: “Professor. It is a fact that the body and the mind are two different things. If it wasn’t, why would R-Kelly say, “My mind is telling me no, but my body is telling me Yeeees”. He said it because he knows that the two are two separate entities. See, that proves that the mind and body is separate. Its like getting a piece of cake. Your mind knows better, but your body wants it.”
There you have it folks. Who knew a 1994 R-kelly lyric would be used to support Cartesian Dualism in 2013.
WHEN YOU FIRST GET AN IDEA FOR A PAPER
YOU SPEND WEEKS WRITING THE PAPER
YOU SHARE IT WITH A FEW OF YOUR COLLEAGUES AND GET THIS REACTION
YOU HUMBLY TAKE THEIR HARSH COMMENTS AND EDIT YOUR PAPER
WHEN YOU PRESENT THE EDITED VERSION AT A CONFERENCE, YOU EXPECT THIS RESPONSE
BUT, INSTEAD YOU GET THIS RESPONSE
SO YOU GO BACK TO WRITING
THIS TIME YOU THINK ITS GENIUS, SO YOU SUBMIT IT TO A JOURNAL
THIS IS HOW THE EDITORIAL BOARD RESPONDS
MAKING YOU FEEL THIS WAY
YOU THINK ABOUT LEAVING PHILOSOPHY…
ONLY TO FIND YOURSELF A FEW WEEKS LATER WORKING ON THE SAME PAPER
I wonder if your writing experience is similar. Tell me about it in the comments section below.
##
They say, “you can take the woman out of philosophy but you cant take philosophy out of the woman.” (I dont know who said this, but someone said it). Philosophers are not only obsessed with questions but also with clarity and when and where our obsessions comes out is not restricted to spaces of academia or philosophy clubs but also includes places like parking lots, back alleys, family reunions, and living rooms.
Understanding meaning is very important. Although we take common speech and assumptions about people’s understanding of it for granted, it is important to be very clear about what one is saying. This is not easy and I must admit this is one of my challenges. Philosophers focus on the strength of arguments but we also recognize that without being clear about what one is saying and what one means, the argument can fall into ruins. So I apologize to everyone whom I ever done THIS WITH . Thank you for not DOING THIS to me, no matter how much you wanted to. Clarity is the name of the game. If you don’t believe me, ask Bill Clinton. If you want some practice in order to get on Ole Bill’s level or you want to no longer be victim to a detective philosopher, start practicing here.
I’m always striving to be a better writer. There are so many thoughts in my head and the challenge is to get them out in a concise, clear manner and not to tackle too much at a time. I also struggle with being creative at the risk of not conforming to the standards of philosophical writing. It may all be in my head or as Kristie Dotson suggests , something I should embrace.
When I heard about the paper Wittgenstein submitted to Russel out of an inquiry he had regarding if he should stay in philosophy, it rung true for me. The doubt, the consideration of other disciplines than philosophy, and the need for affirmation from those you consider great. I’ve been there. I am there.
But I was blown away when Russell revealed that he only read one sentence of the paper and from there was convinced of Wittgenstein’s talent. That must have been one sentence!!! Was it what the sentence said or the way it was worded that stood out? Is it in print? Is it teaching an online course? Does the one sentence have a twitter page? If anyone can get their hands on it, please let me know. I want to read it. More importantly…. I want to write it! Hoping with much practice, I one day will write one sentence that will blow even the greatest mind away. I’m sure this would be my reaction.
Back to writing…
One of my favorite research interests are the moral emotions specifically what Marilyn Frye calls “righteous anger” in “A Note On Anger”. I think that there is something valuable about moral anger. For example, it can be a strong motivation in the pursuit of justice and it can be an expression of self-respect. However, thousands of years ago in Rome, a philosopher by the name of Seneca (explained in his work “On Anger”) would probable disagree with me although his analysis of anger is based on a more nonmoral view of it.
In this video by the BBC, check out what Seneca has to say about anger. According to Seneca, anger rises out of our wrong expectations or beliefs about the world. He then suggests for us to go with the flow and explains the connection between wealth and anger. Although host Alain De Botton’s focus is on practical wisdom taken from Seneca’s anger account and my account of anger is more analytical, Seneca does offer a coherent account of “unrighteous” anger and great advice on how to control it.
Plato was contemplating love over 2500 years ago in The Symposium and Phaedrus. Today, philosophers like Irvin Singer, Kolodny, and Alan Soble are sitting in their arm chairs still wrapping their philosophical brains around the idea. I mean, love is complex!! At times these philosophers disagree with each other on the subject but scientists don’t. On a basic level, scientists all agree about what happens in our brains when we fall in love. The video here gives a brief, yet informative description. But there are questions scientists haven’t answered like why or how love works, what should love look like outside the brain, do we have moral requirements to love, what are moral reasons to love our partial relationships more than others, and what does it mean to love. But no need to fret, fortunately, that’s what philosophers are for!!!
NOTE: The name links above are all papers written by the philosophers. To get a good look into their ideas and arguments about love, take a peak.
My students have been discussing Daniel Dennett’s “Where Am I” in class. We have just switched from ethics into metaphysics/philosophy of mind. The funny thing is, I don’t think they were expecting the dramatic switch and some assumed, by the reading, that we were switching into Science Fiction. The questions I’ve been getting via email is what does Dennett’s work have to do with philosophy?
Well they are slowly but surely finding out. Although they may not ask the question “where am I?” much, they do ask “who am I?” a lot. I know I do. It’s that question we have been examining and the discussions have been interesting.
Speaking of interesting and of Dennett, I was doing some research on meditation and the brain (dont ask why but it does have something to do with Oprah) and came across a short clip on Dennett and spirituality. For a physicalist philosopher, I was surprised and impressed by Dennett’s response. I thought it would be nice of “me,” (whoever I am), to share it with “you” (wherever you are). Did my Dennett puns just work? Nevermind. Oh, another pun!!
It seems that people are all the rage about the Volkswagen Super Bowl commercial. Some feel that the white imitation of Jamaican dialect is racist. I think I hold Kamau Bell’s view of it here
My Response:
Let me just say I love bell hooks. I think she is an excellent writer and a brilliant thinker. It’s nice to hear her voice once again in the public debate. It does appear that she has her criticisms about marriage. Sentence one had me very much intrigued. I wish she would of defended why marriage is an unhealthy institution. I was looking very much to her argument. Instead she gives her perspective on gay marriage in general.
I do agree with her that married or not, people should have certain rights. Those rights should not be based on the state legitimizing those relationships. However in reality marriage is legitimized and with that legitimization comes certain rights. People should therefore have a right to have access to those labeled institutions if they want. However, I think the problem with her critique is the suggestion that gay marriage is only truly a concern for class privileged folks because of their desire to transfer trusts, etc. and therefore not a priority for the poor and minorities.
I heard part two of her argument a lot through minority leaders who ran anti-gay marriage campaigns last year. The thing is, I get what she is trying to say; relationships should not have certain economic privileges that are not but should be extended to all. The truth is that although the poor and minorities do need basic civil rights that have not been granted, this does not make matters of the heart less of a priority. Even if I do not have healthcare, I still want to be with and have the person I love hold me down in tough times. I think in life we never put matters of the heart on the bottom of the totem pole. Relationships are always a priority in the lives of social animals like ourselves. They are our healthcare when we are broke, our support during times of unemployment, our happiness in times of poverty. I should not have to chose one issue over the other or act as if relationships and the right to have them is not a political issue.
Secondly, the poor may not have trusts but there are tax benefits to joint filing as couples. Those married to immigrants are suffering because of DOMA. Many families have been separated as a result. If a partner does get sick despite healthcare, we want their partner to have decision making rights. Gay marriage is not a wealthy people issue. It is an American issue. Although there are some who may think, like bell hooks, that marriage is unhealthy and patriarchal, I think what is unhealthy is denying people the right to do whatever they want to do with the person they love. Gays should demand the right to marry. They should also demand other rights. But one protest should not be sacrificed at the expense of the other or be considered less relevant.
Well another semester is about to begin. As I try to get motivated to start another one and get off this couch, here’s a look back at my brilliant and full of personality students from Fall 2012.
St Johns Ethics
John Jay Ethics and Law
John Jay Intro philosophy
LIU Intro
York Intro
Prison Debate
I had the chance to go to a film screening of the Central Park Five. The event was followed by a Q and A by three of the now grown men who were falsely accused as teenagers. The film made me cry, angry, but then proud. Our criminal justice system needs to be transformed, the media needs to be unbiased truth tellers, and we the public need to be critical thinkers and also activists. But it’s nice to know that when the latter failed, there were strong men who survived despite our failures.
Cornel West, Immortal Technique, and Khalil Muhammad came to our school to share information with our students. The discussion ranged from justice work to mass incarceration. My students enjoyed it and were greatly inspired. Much respect to the students of John Jay who invited the guests and organized the event by themselves.
The next few pictures were taken by my students at the event.
I am very intrigued by geniuses and prodigies. My favorite movies are Good Will Hunting, A Beautiful Mind, and embarrassingly Weird Science. Some of my favorite philosophers I consider geniuses: Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, and Kierkegaard. One of my favorite works by Kant is his universal idea where in thesis 4 he credits the “unsocial sociability” of man that in some way makes us all geniuses. My favorite popular culture article is Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker article “The Emergence of Talent” and also his chapter in Outliers where he suggest that it was practice and not mere talent, that allowed the Beatles and Bill Gates to become who they are. I can go on and on and on but I wont.
Overall, I am interested in the habits, nurture, confidence, motivation, and even the sometimes quirky personality of geniuses. I don’t know if my interest come out of envy, appreciation or both. Or maybe I have this belief that with the right nurture, work, education, and motivation we can all be geniuses or perhaps we already are geniuses at something but we just don’t know it yet. All I know is that there is something about the very notion of geniuses that is worth studying and perhaps emulating.
This week I was glad to learn about 15-year old Sierre Leone genius, Kelvin Doe aka DJ Focus. He is a young inventor who literally invents “something out of nothing.” Its also nice to see that his intentions is to use his inventions to impact his community. Very inspiring. I think I’m going to add him to my on and on list above.
I love Bertrand Russell. Not only do I think he was a brilliant mind who lived a very very very long philosophical life, I also think that he was pretty cool. Like OG cool. His suits, that cigar, and that critical mind of his…cool Russell. Heres a little message from Betrand Russell called the 10 Commandments of Teaching. It comes from Russell’s autobiography where he gives a micro manifesto- called the Liberal Decalogue. Although he is popular for his mathematics and philosophy of religion, he also wrote a few things on education. Here’s a little taste:
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
- Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
- Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
- Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
- When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
- Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
- Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
- Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
- Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
- Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
- Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
We’ve all done it. What you may ask? Hold on, I will tell you later…. Ok, we are back. Sorry about procrastinating. Hey we all do it. I consider myself an academic planner but I do at times procrastinate about reading, writing, grading papers, blogging here, calling such and such, responding to that email, etc. etc. etc. It’s nice to know there’s a science behind procrastination. It makes me feel justified in a lazy yet ingenious kind of way.
Cornel West and Tavis Smiley appeared on Democracy Now yesterday to discuss the election. Here are a few responses. The question is, are these critiques dead on or simply too harsh?
On money spent on the election and Obama in blackface…
“I think that it’s morally obscene and spiritually profane to spend $6 billion on an election, $2 billion on a presidential election, and not have any serious discussion — poverty, trade unions being pushed against the wall dealing with stagnating and declining wages when profits are still up and the 1 percent are doing very well, no talk about drones dropping bombs on innocent people. So we end up with such a narrow, truncated political discourse, as the major problems — ecological catastrophe, climate change, global warming. So it’s very sad. I mean, I’m glad there was not a right-wing takeover, but we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface, with Barack Obama, so that our struggle with regard to poverty intensifies” …
On Black pundits like Melissa Harris Perry, Dyson, and Sharpton…
“I love Brother Mike Dyson … but we’re living in a society where everybody is up for sale. Everything is up for sale. And he and Brother Sharpton and Sister Melissa and others, they have sold their souls for a mess of Obama pottage. And we invite them back to the black prophetic tradition after Obama leaves. But at the moment, they want insider access, and they want to tell those kind of lies. They want to turn their back to poor and working people.”
On the legacy of Obama…
“In the president’s forward motion in the second term to establish a legacy — and I don’t think that being president ought to be about a legacy; it ought to be about advancing the best for the American people. But in this conversation about his legacy, I want to see what risk he’s going to take. Is he going to put himself on the line for poor people? Is he going have an honest conversation about drones? As Doc said earlier, you know, is he ever going to say the word prison — the phrase, “prison-industrial complex”? Reagan wouldn’t say “AIDS.” Bush wouldn’t say “climate change.” Will Obama say “prison-industrial complex”? I mean, I want to know where the risk is that equates to being the most progressive president ever. That’s the — I don’t get that.”
Here is some funny. Obama has been re-elected. Ok that’s not the funny part. That’s the “thank god, all fairies, and the stars and the moons because I was nervous” part. The funny part is Key and Peele or should I say Obama and his anger translator, Luther. They celebrated last night by doing the Hammer. Thank you America that “We Won”!! Watch Here
I love Martha Nussbaum. Its not only because we share similar philosophical interests (value of the emotions, philosophy of law, political theory, and cosmopolitanism) but because I also think that she combines brilliance, class, grace, and confidence in a very beautiful way. James Harmon has a book out called “Take My Advice” and has included a letter from Martha where she gives advice about “celebrating emotional excess as a generative force, embracing vulnerability, not fearing feelings, and harnessing the empathic power of storytelling” according to the guys at BrainPickings.
Here is an excerpt:
Do not despise your inner world. That is the first and most general piece of advice I would offer… Our society is very outward-looking, very taken up with the latest new object, the latest piece of gossip, the latest opportunity for self-assertion and status. But we all begin our lives as helpless babies, dependent on others for comfort, food, and survival itself. And even though we develop a degree of mastery and independence, we always remain alarmingly weak and incomplete, dependent on others and on an uncertain world for whatever we are able to achieve. As we grow, we all develop a wide range of emotions responding to this predicament: fear that bad things will happen and that we will be powerless to ward them off; love for those who help and support us; grief when a loved one is lost; hope for good things in the future; anger when someone else damages something we care about. Our emotional life maps our incompleteness: A creature without any needs would never have reasons for fear, or grief, or hope, or anger. But for that very reason we are often ashamed of our emotions, and of the relations of need and dependency bound up with them. Perhaps males, in our society, are especially likely to be ashamed of being incomplete and dependent, because a dominant image of masculinity tells them that they should be self-sufficient and dominant. So people flee from their inner world of feeling, and from articulate mastery of their own emotional experiences. The current psychological literature on the life of boys in America indicates that a large proportion of boys are quite unable to talk about how they feel and how others feel — because they have learned to be ashamed of feelings and needs, and to push them underground. But that means that they don’t know how to deal with their own emotions, or to communicate them to others. When they are frightened, they don’t know how to say it, or even to become fully aware of it. Often they turn their own fear into aggression. Often, too, this lack of a rich inner life catapults them into depression in later life. We are all going to encounter illness, loss, and aging, and we’re not well prepared for these inevitable events by a culture that directs us to think of externals only, and to measure ourselves in terms of our possessions of externals.
What is the remedy of these ills? A kind of self-love that does not shrink from the needy and incomplete parts of the self, but accepts those with interest and curiosity, and tries to develop a language with which to talk about needs and feelings. Storytelling plays a big role in the process of development. As we tell stories about the lives of others, we learn how to imagine what another creature might feel in response to various events. At the same time, we identify with the other creature and learn something about ourselves. As we grow older, we encounter more and more complex stories — in literature, film, visual art, music — that give us a richer and more subtle grasp of human emotions and of our own inner world. So my second piece of advice, closely related to the first, is: Read a lot of stories, listen to a lot of music, and think about what the stories you encounter mean for your own life and lives of those you love. In that way, you will not be alone with an empty self; you will have a newly rich life with yourself, and enhanced possibilities of real communication with others.
