Religious Privilege (#1)

US Judge jails Muslim woman over head scarf.

Why am I calling this religious privilege? Because you know that if a woman not overtly identified with any religious group (and therefore assumed, by default, to be Christian) came in wearing a covering of some sort - hat, scarf, wig - because she's undergoing chemotherapy, she'd not have been asked to leave. I suspect, although I do NOT know, if a nun wearing a veil walked in, she'd not have been asked to leave, either.

Actually, I pretty much suspect that if *I* walked in a headscarf tied according to Jewish modesty - leaving the entire face and neck exposed - there's a good chance I'd be allowed to stay as well. Because here the privilege is being part of a "standard" US religion.

But this woman wore hijab, proclaiming herself to be Muslim. And that was sufficient for the judge to toss her out.

There are those in the comments who were surprised that she could say an expletive but not remove her scarf. That's because, as privileged people, they don't have to assume that other cultures might have differing value - that a curse is nothing, but removing an article of clothing is a sin. One commenter said that Gd doesn't have a dress code. Of course, forcing people to uncover their heads is adhering to a dress code all by itself, but since that's the norm for this culture, no one notices.

To a woman who covers her head, removing the covering is tantamount to asking her to remove her blouse in public. To acknowledge that, though, is to admit that other religious views have value. And that doesn't occur to the privileged.

Auto Bail-out

And after I said such nice things about the Republicans just the other day, too.

The Southern Republican senators *could* have said that they were simply looking out for the best interests of their constituents employed in the foreign auto plants in their states. That would have been reasonable and right - it's their jobs to look out for their constituents.

But they didn't. Not once. What did they say? That the automakers in their states are fine (they're not. US sales are down for all automakers - people don't want to buy cars and they can't get credit if they do) and it's all the fault of the unions anyway. That union workers get paid too much and that's why the US industry is failing.

They are saying that American workers need to make *less* money and get *fewer* benefits (and, you know? The workers agreed to do that in their new contract. Not immediately, perhaps, but they agreed to do it.)

They mean that unions are evil. That collective bargaining is bad for this country. That workers should have no rights except what their employers. Because the workers provide no benefit to their employers at all. And even if it costs this country 3 million jobs at one shot, it's worth it to break the unions.

(I wonder. Do they think the people in Chicago who sat-in for their rights are wrong, too? Because they showed that organization can work.)

And they won, or believe they did. Fortunately, and I'm finding this hard to say, but the White House itself doesn't agree with them - perhaps Bush knows that bad as things are for him, they could get worse, or maybe he actually cares - and they will help. Because this is not a blow we can weather right now.

Maybe later. Maybe there might come a time when we have to let the US auto industry fail. Goodness knows, when I rent cars, I usually will choose a Japanese car over an American one. But right now, we as a country can't afford this.

Scary times out there, and we're pinning everything on a man not even in power yet.

Any guesses or leaks as to whom Obama is choosing as Secretary of Labor?

Bi-Partisanship

There's this thing I've been noticing over the past few weeks - since the election, actually, and it's a good thing.

I remember clearly the anger when Clinton was elected, after twelve years of Republican control of the White House. People were declaring loudly and on TV that he "was not their president." The opposition went to work immediately (while then President-Elect Clinton went on a five-week vacation) to undermine him and his authority. It certainly didn't help that he won by a plurality, not a majority, with Perot taking votes away from George HW Bush (I tend to call him Bush père).

And I, of course, was angry after the 2000 election, when Bush fils was voted in by the Supreme Court. Like many Democrats, I felt like my choice had been entirely taken away, and it boded ill for the country to be run by someone who would steal an election. If he had no respect for that, would he have respect for anything else?

We all know the answer to that question. Of course, Gore didn't accede to pressure to concede until mid-December, just before the electors voted, so there was no time for Bush to do anything but form a cabinet, and since the Republicans had the House and Senate, there was little the Democrats could do to undermine him if they were in a mind to do so.

By the time they regained Congress in the aftermath of the war and Katrina, the rules had been changed so that a party needed a supermajority in the Senate to get anything done.

So, you'd expect that the Republicans would now be doing everything in their power to undermine Obama, to eliminate his "honeymoon", to show that he will wreck the country.

But they haven't been. They are talking about working with him, about supporting him, about the fact that he's EVERYONE'S president. They've been doing this since the election - sometimes I wasn't sure if the strategist on the screen were Democratic or Republican.

Even now, when the scandal in Illinois seems to be handing the Republicans a chance on a silver platter - well, I just saw an interview on MSNBC where the anchor tried to get an Republican Illinois congressman to equate Obama with Blagojevich, and he wouldn't do it. He flatly refused - Obama is not involved. I think she also managed to get a man with the courage of his convictions (rare in any party) who didn't like corruption no matter what the party - he doesn't want Bush to pardon the currently incarcerated Republican former governor of Illinois, either.

But it's all of a piece of what I've been seeing since November. The insiders (not the bloggers) have been gracious losers, and that's not normal for politicians of any stripe. So I suspect something - something good.

I think that the Republican leadership has sent the word down to support Obama, to give him the nation he talked about during his campaign. And they're doing it because the country is in bad shape, with the economy falling apart and two expensive wars, and having a president who has to fight those things *and* them is ultimately bad for the country.

That is, the true leadership of the Republicans actually does care. This can be John McCain, who I believe showed his true stripes during his concession speech, or it can be Bush père, but I don't think it's anyone in the Bush fils administration. And if that's the case, I am feeling better about the future - people who agree that the country's needs are paramount can work together even if they agree on little else.

I'm not sure the Democrats would have been as adult in the opposite case, but I surely hope so.

Hello, world

Hi.

Why yet another blog from the left? For a whole host of reasons. I wanted a place I felt more comfortable saying what I think than in my beloved LiveJournal, although I have no intention of abandoning my permanent account there. Because I've been paying close attention to the media and politics since the primaries and I needed a forum of my own.

Because you get far enough on the left, you hit anti-zionism/anti-semitism and I've been hitting that place more than I'd like lately.

I support Israel's right to exist as a state and as a nation. I don't always support what its government does, but I think the world is a better place for having it exist. And I very much believe that if it ceased to exist, if there was no longer a Jewish state in that part of the world, that would bring disaster to the area. I think it would be disastrous for the Palestinians, for that matter.

I think that the US's support for Israel acts in its own best interest. And I know the US government knows this. The Jewish vote is important - we're 1.3% of the population, but we darn well VOTE. But there are better reasons, and reasons that have nothing to do with wanting the Christian messiah figure to return.

And I've seen people on leftwing blogs say, straight out, "The US should stop supporting Israel." I'm not sure what they think the result of that would be.

Also, I'd like a place to grouse about the time of year without harshing someone's squee. I really don't want to do that. I just get tired of being othered.

I'll probably also talk about knitting and cooking, and I'll certainly bring up size acceptance and religion. And what I think about current US politics - that more than anything.