Do Mascots Need Modernizing? Ctd

A reader writes:

I find the whole controversy about mascots and team names to be a little ridiculous. While I can FightingWhitesunderstand the hurt feelings, as a white guy, I am probably the last person who should tell other people how to feel. But what gives power to these issues are Native Americans reaction to them. An intramural team in Northern Colorado picked an intentionally insulting name to prove a point (the Fighting Whites) and it backfired. I personally thought it was hilarious, and was going to order one of the shirts, but they were sold out! I never did follow up, but apparently they are still for sale. The best thing they could do is probably ignore the whole issue.

Another has a very different perspective:

Thank you for bringing attention to the mascot issue – it’s wonderful to hear opinions aired on both sides that are measured and reasonable, as opposed to the comments one encounters in the various articles in the Washington Post and other places that have covered this controversy.

First, a bit of a reveal.  I’m actually one of the plaintiffs in the Blackhorse v. Pro Football Inc. case that was recently heard in the from the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, so I’ve staked out my position on this issue. I wanted to touch on an aspect of the debate that hasn’t quite been aired out yet, and that’s more of a personal reflection. I spent much of my childhood growing up on an Indian reservation and am a member of a federally recognized tribe and have family in two other tribes through my father.

I was raised by both parents to be proud of my background, and I participate in a wide variety of cultural and religious activities. Spending much of my time on the reservation or places where Native people are more common than most places (the Mountain West and Oklahoma), I was in a bubble. I was certainly exposed to attitudes and stereotypes about Indians growing up, but these attitudes were easily dismissed because the people who held them were clearly bigots. When I left the reservation for school, however, I was exposed to a much more insidious perception. Most people haven’t met a Native person, and even those who have tend to have little idea that the person they’re interacting with is Native. Most people’s ideas of what Native people represent are shaped by popular culture. And much of what is spewed out by popular culture is wrong, disrespectful and sometimes plainly racist.

In school I was often asked about where my feathers were, where I kept my “Indian costume,” why my hair wasn’t long, and if I lived in a tipi. I was asked to “talk Indian”, and when I competed in sports people would call out to me on the field with “Indian” whoops taken from the chants of the Redskins and bad Spaghetti Westerns.

At first, this didn’t bother me much, as my identity of who I was and where I came from is pretty strong. Clearly it bothers me a lot more now that I’m older as it has become clear that these questions come from Indians’ lack of control with regard to their own image and identity. And pop culture shapes Native youths’ perceptions of themselves and where they come from. I can’t think of any other culture that the American majority culture gets to explicitly exploit and slap on the side of a product to sell something more than Native people. The Land O’ Lakes lady, the logo on the side of the Redskins’ helmets, and pretty soon Johnny Depp with a dead bird on his head are what many people are going to think of when they think “Indian.”

Nothing illustrated this to me more than my own son who just finished the 1st grade in a place dominated mostly by Redskins fans. My son is a kid of the world – his roots come from my family’s three different tribes, my grandmother’s Okie-Irish heritage, and his mom’s mix of Korean, African American and Wampanoag. If you asked him “what he was” he would probably tell you a bit about all sides of his family and self-identify as Native as we’ve raised him as best we could far from the reservation in our family traditions and cultural heritage. When his friends ask him why he doesn’t look like the Redskin logo, he struggled to answer. He then started wondering why momma didn’t look like the lady on the side of the butter container. He’s bothered that when his hair grows long it isn’t straight like daddy’s, but is curly like his mom’s. The effects of mainstream culture that thinks it has a good idea of what an Indian looks like and does have already started to plant seeds of doubt as to his own authenticity, and this is something he’ll struggle with much of his life until he comes to terms with his identity.

These are major issues, but as a parent I’m glad I get to set him and his friends straight and equip him with the tools to live a world that materializes and misappropriates almost everything about our culture. But why do we tolerate this materialization and misappropriation of Native culture to the extent that we do? There a lot of good reasons to fight alongside Amanda Blackhorse in the Blackhorse v. Pro Football Inc. case, and your readers have aired out a lot of them. But for me the fight is personal, represented by own experience and perhaps most importantly by the experience my son and his children will have.

Thanks for the chance to air this out. I’m a long-time reader who rarely gets to air anything out with any kind of authority. Also – good job on putting more “read more” stories out there – my frustration at being unable to follow the mascot thread inspired me to sign up for my monthly subscription, and given how much I read the Dish, I would have given more but I am a poor graduate student at the moment so my $1.99 a month will have to suffice until this degree pays off.

Give To The Dish By Giving The Dish

gift-dish-blue

A reader wrote last month:

I want to give more money to the Dish, but I can’t. I e-mailed a few months back that I want to give more money on a bi-monthly basis or so, but your current configuration won’t let me since I’m already a subscriber. You have been on fire today (as you are most days, but today is especially good), so I was ready to slap down another $150 [the minimum price is $19.99], but I can’t. Can you help, if you’re even reading this, which I suspect you aren’t since I suspect you’ve all blackballed me since I was a tad rough on your lit editor a short while back and that you all just discard my e-mails immediately without reading. But still, CAN YOU HELP ME GIVE YOU MORE MONEY?

We take no reader emails personally. If I did, I would have jumped off a bridge a long long time ago. But the short answer is: you bet. And by far the best way to do it (apart from re-subscribing next year) is to give a Dish subscription to a friend, family member or co-worker you think would enjoy it. It can be a great spur to conversation, debate or just sharing jokes and silly videos.

Simply click here to buy a gift subscription for a friend, family member or co-worker – a gift that will simultaneously support the Dish. It only takes a minute. And unlike your initial subscription, you can buy as many gift subscriptions as you like using the same email address. Or you can buy one big gift for someone by setting your own price. Remember, the gift subscriptions are not auto-renewing, so you don’t have to worry about being billed again a year from now. Another reader wrote in April:

I am a subscriber, and have enjoyed your blog for years.  My main disagreement with you was your support of President Bush’s mobilization to a war that helped break our national economy and brought us to today. Your recent mea culpa in regards to beating the drums of war back in ’02 and ’03 seems quite sincere.  I want to let you know that in the most agreeable way: by donating/increasing my subscription cost for this year.  However, much to my surprise, I can find no button to push that would allow such a payment or donation. Would it not be logical, much like a tip jar at a cash register, to have a way for happy readers to reward the work you do with a quick tip?

We have never liked the idea of having the tip jar, since Dish Publishing LLC is a business and not a charity. But by gifting the Dish, you are both increasing your support to the Dish and spreading the Dishness more widely – to other readers and potential future subscribers. We want to broaden our readership, which will ensure our survival, and you are easily the best marketers we have and the only ones we can afford. Another reader wrote in May:

As I looked at your conversion rates and projected revenue for the year, it occurred to me that the enthusiastic early subscribers (like me!) would be very likely to add to their subscription fees if provided a clear message about what would be gained by the Dish. I can imagine an update note being sent to subscribers at the half-way point to their subscription anniversary, a sort of soft-sell pitch for an additional contribution to afford XYZ for the site. I am planning to add another $20 to my subscription at the six-month point. I’ll bet other early subscribers would as well.

I am actually planning to start a fortnightly newsletter this summer in the near future – one that will feature a series of conversational podcasts between me and some fascinating people (well-known and not), and a few original, commissioned long-form pieces. We’re going to call this section “Deep Dish”. We hope it’s a way of thanking our subscribers and giving them something more on top of full access to the Dish itself. If you still haven’t subscribed yourself, [tinypass_offer text=”click here”]. And drop us an email after doing so; we are always happy to hear from new subscribers.

Quote For The Day II

“First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as weddingaisleAmericans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans – our true north – it is less government and more freedom. We don’t want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don’t need it in our families.

Secondly, civil marriage also touches the foundation of our national culture: safe, healthy families and robust community life. In so many ways, sound families are the foundation of our society.  Any efforts or opportunity to expand the civil bonds and rights to anyone that wants to build a stable, happy household should be promoted,” – Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), making the conservative case for marriage equality.

What’s A Bisexual Anyway? Ctd

A male reader quotes another:

“(What I haven’t ever encountered was a guy claiming to be bi, but apparently exclusively interested in men.)” Actually, “bi” was often shorthand for something else in the old “men seeking men” section of the Village Voice personals. Guys used “bi” and/or “masc” to differentiate from “fem” men (which had its own large following). “Bi” implied they pass for straight and/or were turned off by femininity in other men and themselves. It was a physical description that didn’t pertain to sexual practices because this personals section was exclusively about dude-on-dude action.

Personally, I liked the idea of dating bi men even if he really wasn’t, and I liked dating married men even if they were a little fem. They just had to be a bear.

Another has a long and dramatic story:

One of your readers in response to the original letter wrote that he has never met a bisexual man who only plays around with men.  I am as close to that as I think anybody is going to find. Growing up, my animal attraction was definitely more directed at other males, but I developed deep crushes on girls and women as well.  At 17, I had my first girlfriend and we were together until I was 21.  Our sex life was satisfying (to me anyway, she had problems achieving orgasm from intercourse out of fear of pregnancy).  However, I also had many male obsessions, any one of which I would have acted on if the situation arose – or more accurately, if the other guy had been extremely aggressive.

To that point, my only sexual encounter had been as a 16-year old at a choral convention of which my high school was one of only two invited.  The rest of the groups were from colleges across the country.  I relentlessly stared at this guy, not because I thought he was so attractive (there were others way more attractive) but because he was obviously gay.  We eventually struck up a conversation and he asked me if I wanted to go to his room “to talk.”  When there, he made a big move, which surprisingly, shocked me.  But we messed around and then I went out to dinner and a show with my class, embarrassed and humiliated.

I continued dating women but developed a crush on a co-worker who prided himself on being the “first” for a lot of straight guys.  I still identified as straight and aside from saying things like “I wouldn’t push Sting out of bed”, I never let on.  We wound up in an extremely unhealthy relationship that lasted for two years on and off.

After it was over and I had recovered my sanity and self-esteem, I embarked on a period of dating women and sleeping around with men.

I told myself I was attracted to men but emotionally I was better off with a woman and I suspected I would never be happy with either completely.  Surprisingly, I subsequently met a woman at the gym with whom I fell deeply in love.  In two months we were married and in two years we had two children.  I was 99% faithful as she seemed to help me put it all together.  She was beautiful and wild and fun and raunchy and more importantly when I told her about my attraction to men and about my ex-boyfriend, her response was, “Cool!” Maybe twice in the first six years I had a little dalliance with a guy when she was out of town but it was nothing she probably wouldn’t have forgiven.

Seven years into my marriage, my wife was diagnosed as clinically depressed (she wasn’t, she was bipolar) and she was put on medication which made her worse and which also amplified the effects of alcohol (up to that point alcohol had no effect on her in any way, she could drink 20 shots and remain as sober as the moment she started) and she started to get drunk regularly.  Our marriage started to fall apart and I started to sleep with men any chance I could get.  The more unhappy we were, the gayer I became.  We resembled a miserable married couple except for my secret.  I still believed however, that emotionally I was meant for women and truthfully, I still loved my wife very much.

At eleven years of marriage, I met a man online and fell madly in love.  Three weeks later I left my wife and he left his boyfriend of 14 years.  A messy divorce followed.  This man and I are still together 13 years later and we have been married for ten (in Ottawa in 2003).  We regularly play outside the relationship together (although much less lately) and it’s always been with other men.  We’ve joked about certain women we could have fun with (he has had his moments with women through the years), but it’s talk and nothing more.  I’m very happy and I’m not tempted by women.  However, I still do find certain women extremely sexually attractive and I would have no problem following through if the situation arose.

If I’m honest with myself I never really stopped being in love with my wife.  I don’t have much to do with her anymore except when it comes to our beautiful children, but she really was and is someone very special to me. But for a number of reasons it wasn’t right.

I identified as bisexual for years after I left her but the truth is despite my obvious ability to have relationships and sex with men and women, I am gay.  And while I’m sure you didn’t realize or expected this to go here, I really don’t believe there are bisexual men (as previously discussed, the fluidity of most women’s sexuality is way more complicated); men who can live life like a blank slate and where ever they wind up is fine with them.  There is a correct choice for each person regardless of what titillates them or what they can do in the moment.

Your initial reader isn’t bisexual if his letter is honest.  He’s a straight man who’s turned on by “dirty”.  Despite 11 years of a mostly happy marriage in which my wife and I had a fulfilling sexual relationship until the day I left her, I could not completely be who I am with her.  With my husband, I can.  While many may disagree with me and that’s fine, I don’t find bisexuals threatening because I don’t believe in them.  However, I’m as close to a bisexual man who only fools around with men as you are likely to find.

Another:

I feel vindicated by my earlier email to you by that fact that every letter you have posted is from a “bisexual” woman. You won’t find any truly bisexual men. Your initial reader is either titillated by the taboo of it all or he is a closeted gay man who is in denial. I know from personal experience, and so does every other gay man who finds women attractive in some way. It isn’t surprising to me that you appear to have very few men who would openly discuss their bisexuality.

Read the whole Dish thread on bisexuality here.

An English Midsummer Evening

photo-1

I was on my way to dinner last night and took a tour through Hyde Park. It’s the week of the longest days here, and it brought so much back to me. You remember the constant rain, the dark winter days, the sun going down around 4 pm, the horrifying imprisonment of Christmas, the condensation-drenched windows inside the the cigarette-smoke-filled bus I would take each day home from school.

You forget the glorious summers, when I would be woken up at 5 am by a dawn chorus of birdsong more deafening than any alarm clock, and the early sun would flood the bedroom I shared with my brother and sister. My mum simply threw us out of the house each day and asked merely that we return by sunset. And sunset could be 10.30 pm.

I could stay out late in the woods, reading or writing (yes, I was a nerd), or playing with my small band of friends in our various camps, or photoplay impromptu tennis with my brother on the street outside our house, pretending we were the willowy British underdogs at Wimbledon, until the light faded and made it impossible. We were rarely interrupted, since our road was a dead end, and we were almost the last house on the block, which ended in fields and woods. Maybe it was because of the dreary dark winters that these summer nights held such charm; maybe it’s because the HIV ban kept me distant from my home country for so long that these late summer nights have had such a Proustian impact on me – but you can see where Shakespeare’s dream came from.

And as I looked at the wild grasses, and daisies, and chestnut trees and hazy, setting sun in the park, it was hard to believe I was in central London. But Hyde Park is big enough to lose yourself in and see nothing of the city anywhere. No office towers, no New York pressure. Just fields of grass. I could have been in Wiltshire or Sussex, where I grew up.

You think you change and adapt, but it’s uncanny how this flash of old summers came back instantly to me, how deeply I missed it, and how wonderful this little sceptered island can be at this time of year.

The Anti-Quagmire President, Ctd

Obama acknowledges the danger of getting sucked deeper and deeper into a conflict:

Jeffrey Goldberg also reports that last week John Kerry pushed for US airstrikes on Syrian airfields, only to be rebuked (mercifully) by the Pentagon:

At a principals meeting in the White House situation room, Secretary of State John Kerry began arguing, vociferously, for immediate U.S. airstrikes against airfields under the control of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime — specifically, those fields it has used to launch chemical weapons raids against rebel forces.

It was at this point that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the usually mild-mannered Army General Martin Dempsey, spoke up, loudly. According to several sources, Dempsey threw a series of brushback pitches at Kerry, demanding to know just exactly what the post-strike plan would be and pointing out that the State Department didn’t fully grasp the complexity of such an operation.

Dempsey informed Kerry that the Air Force could not simply drop a few bombs, or fire a few missiles, at targets inside Syria: To be safe, the U.S. would have to neutralize Syria’s integrated air-defense system, an operation that would require 700 or more sorties. At a time when the U.S. military is exhausted, and when sequestration is ripping into the Pentagon budget, Dempsey is said to have argued that a demand by the State Department for precipitous military action in a murky civil war wasn’t welcome.

If this is true, it reveals again how John Kerry is still trapped in the mindset of his generation. Even Kerry – Vietnam vet – is arguing for exactly the kind of small intervention that metastasized into the Vietnam disaster. And remember he backed the Iraq War as well, however ludicrously he tried to spin it in 2004. Meanwhile, Hussein Ibish objects to the comparison of Syria to the quagmire in Iraq:

The Iraq war was about unilaterally engineered American regime change. The intervention in Syria will be about helping Syrians themselves ensure regime change on their own or come to the point where they can actually negotiate a new post-dictatorship modus vivendi.

Rather than a long-term occupation, as in Iraq, this will involve major aid to specific rebel groups, including arms and other materiel intelligence, command-and-control assistance, no-fly zones, and possibly a real confrontation with the Syrian Air Force and air defenses. But what it will not mean is American “boots on the ground.” As in Libya, the ‘Pottery Barn’ rules (“you break it, you own it”) will and should not apply in Syria. We can help Syrians get out of the mess they are in, but we cannot and should not dictate their future.

Ibish’s arguments – among them, that my opposition to intervention in Syria or Iran is based on some kind of crude non-interventionism – evaporate upon close inspection.

On Iran, I simply don’t believe their nuclear capacity is a real threat to the US. They have more than 200 Israeli nuclear warheads pointed right at them and would benefit much more from keeping their arsenal just on the brink of becoming operational (like Japan) than doing something crazy. More to the point, if our goal is eventual rapprochement with Iran’s people who support the nuclear program, then making this issue the non-negotiable element is to alienate the very future generation we will need. On Syria, whether we have boots on the ground seems largely irrelevant to me. Any attempt seriously to arm the Sunni Jihadists would require exactly what Ibish says – and what he describes is a huge military operation, as the generals told Kerry. We have no idea where that might lead, but if we succeed in changing the dynamic of the civil war, we very much will own the result. And that result could be a massacre of Alawites and Christians in Syria, unpredictable reactions from Iran and Russia, and involvement of the US in the Sunni-Shia regional war.

And please, if we have learned anything at this point it is that the word “Syrians” confuses as much as it clarifies. The reality is a country at war with itself, splintered by sectarian passions and history’s endless grudges and now recent atrocities requiring revenge. I’m with the president in the interview above – and much less worried that we might actually slip into another clusterfuck in the Middle East than I was before I heard him explain the strong limits he has placed on the operation.

More Dish on intervention in Syria here, here, here, and here.

Americans Are Saner Than Their Government

A plurality of Americans disagree with Obama’s decision to arm Syria’s rebels:

Obama Syria

That’s 49 percent disapproval vs 29 percent approval, with a fifth having the courage to say they haven’t a clue (probably the most honest answer to the survey.) Another finding:

Only 13% think there should have been earlier action by the U.S. government; more than three times as many think the U.S. either should have waited to act on behalf of the rebels (8% of sample), or that the President should not take any action in support of the Syrian rebels at all (33% of sample).

Whither The Weaponry?

Marc Herman wonders how well the US will be able to keep tabs on the weapons it has committed to Syrian rebels. He notes that we’re still trying to figure out how many foreign weapons “ended up in Libya in violation of their original terms of purchase”:

Scholars who study small arms proliferation have looked at the 2011 war in Libya as a guide and found evidence of illegal arms transfers and poor tracking of weapons. More than a year after the war ended, no overall accounting exists of the total amount of lethal material allies like France and Qatar imported to Libya.

The doesn’t mean the same will be true in Syria. And the U.S., which has some of the world’s most stringent weapons tracking rules, was not a key supplier of lethal material to Libyan rebels.

But the parallels worry scholars. In a series of interviews begun last year, several investigators who follow small arms transactions argued that weak international rules for tracking transfers make it nearly impossible to account for weapons sent to non-government actors—like rebel militias in Libya and, now, Syria.

Is Obama Through The Storm?

Obama Job Approval

John Sides thinks Democrats should be concerned about Obama’s declining approval rating:

I estimated a model of presidential election outcomes from 1948-2012 that included change in gross domestic product over the first two quarters of the election year, presidential approval as of June of the election  year, an indicator for whether the incumbent is running, and the interaction of approval and incumbency.  This model suggests that when the incumbent is not running, a 7-point drop in approval is associated with a 1-point drop in the incumbent party candidate’s share of the major-party vote.  If I were Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic hopeful, I’d want Obama to be as popular as possible when he leaves office.  And if I were Obama and I wanted the legislative achievements of my presidency to last, I’d want a Democrat to win in 2016.

Nate Cohn isn’t worried about the slide continuing:

Without additional bad news, a recovery seems likelier [than a long-term decline]. So far, there’s not much evidence that the “scandals” or controversies of the last few months have much staying power. With the NSA dominating the news of the last few weeks, you could be forgiven for forgetting about Benghazi, IRS targeting, or the AP leaks. The sequester, which prompted an initial decline in the president’s approval ratings, might have also slipped your mind.

Without additional revelations, what’s going to keep the NSA controversy alive? My hunch: nothing, just like the controversies that preceded it. The NSA controversy might be especially likely to dissipate, since Republicans don’t appear keen on mounting a sustained attack on a program they have a record of supporting.

What would worry me is this:

The number of Americans who think he is honest has dropped nine points over the past month, to 49%.

Part of this is because of a concerted campaign from Fox News to portray him as guilty until proven innocent on the IRS, and then to challenge him (for purely factional reasons) on the NSA. But part is the fact that many Obama supporters (including me) have been critical lately. When Obamaites take the president to task, it helps legitimize the criticism in a way Sarah Palin wouldn’t. But his core strength has been the fact (I would say) that he has maintained an honest and straightforward image with Americans for a long time. It is one of his greatest assets. Losing that makes winning the argument on the Hill far harder. And the big drop in millennial support is also a structural shift. Maybe it will perk up. But the drop was sharp.

(Chart from TPM)

Silver vs Politico

This made me very happy this morning:

It’s striking how preoccupied Harris and VandeHei are with the perception that Politico is too “insidery”. My personal critique of their work cuts a little deeper than that, however. It’s not that they are too “insidery” per se, but that the perceptions of Beltway 447px-Rose_champagne_infinite_bubblesinsiders, which Politico echoes and embraces, are not always very insightful or accurate. In other words, the conventional wisdom is often wrong, especially in Washington.

Now, it would be one thing if Politico were to describe the conventional wisdom and then hold it up to a critical examination. That would be extremely useful and interesting. I thought Ben Smith, back when he wrote for them, had a real knack for that. And they have a few other journalists who I really enjoy reading. But in most of the “Behind the Curtain” pieces, by contrast, there’s a lack of perspective — in particular, a lack of perspective about the role that Politico plays in formulating the conventional wisdom which they then “report” upon.

Furthermore, Harris and VandeHei seem to lack very much curiosity for the world outside of the bubble.

Harris claims it’s not worth his time to read 538, and VandeHei characterizes my work as “trying to use numbers to prove stuff”. Instead, what 538 is really about is providing a critical perspective, and scrutinizing claims on the basis of evidence (statistical or otherwise). In order to do that, you have to believe that there is some sort of truth outside the bubble — what would be called the “objective” world in a scientific or philosophical context. Politico, by contrast, sometimes seems to operate within a “post-truth” worldview. Some people think that is the very essence of savvy, modern journalism, but my bet is that journalism is headed in another direction – toward being more critical and empirical.

I am, of course, with Nate. The distortive effect of Politico actually corrodes democracy, in my view, because it constantly prioritizes the 6-hour news cycle and the higher inside-bullshit to tell us allegedly what is happening in Washington. We can mistake that for what matters in Washington for the 300 million people it’s supposed to represent. That’s an after-thought to these Beltway courtesans.

There’s no perspective, very little history, precious little policy and no perceivable goal except financial success. It feels to me like a modern company which always works for the next earnings report, rather than a long-term strategy for actually contributing to democratic discourse.

We’d be better off if they disappeared into the ether. But, of course, they will continue to thrive.