On September 14, CBS will premiere the 13th season of the inexplicably successful “reality TV” series, Survivor. The season will begin by separating the tribes (as the “teams” are called) according to race—Blacks, Whites, Asians and Latinos. Coverage on the BBC News website at http://news.bbc.co.uk indicates that the network claims it is addressing complaints of inadequate ethnic representation among the show’s contestants.
As a person of color, I am not surprised that the network executives, series producers, and program sponsors did not fully consider the implications of the show’s format. Although BBC quoted the network as acknowledging “the controversial nature of this format,” it seems pretty clear that they do not. So again, it is up to us, the Communities of Color, to give CBS the perspective it does not appear to possess.
SUGGESTED ACTION: You can take action by doing the following: Go to CBS’s website (www.cbs.com), click on Survivor Premiere, then Find out more, then Feedback. Send the network any message that you feel will be most effective in protesting the upcoming Premiere, and ask that they reconsider airing the show. If you would rather send a template protest, here is a suggestion that you can cut and paste into the Feedback form:
Dear CBS:
How exciting that the network will soon air the 13th “Survivor” season. I am looking forward to it, and I really hope to see someone who is [insert race here] win the money. Keep up the good work!
P.S. Here’s an idea for next season: I would like to see Jews versus Palestinians, or maybe Straights versus Gays. Another show that would be fun is Right to Lifers versus Pro Choice. Wouldn’t that be great?
TAKE ACTION; WRITE TO CBS TODAY!
August 25, 2006
July 25, 2006
People are so freakin' FUNNY. They're predictable yet contradictory, interesting in some ways while droll in others... but mostly they're just plain comical.
I was sitting at home one night trolling some of the dating websites when it occurred to me that there really wasn't a way to meet people (well, women) that didn't involve a bar, alcohol, or flag football. I got the idea to start a list-serve, a Yahoo! group, a bunch of women who might want to meet once in a while to have dinner or coffee, conversation that wasn't shouted over the din of music, maybe some arts & culture stuff or arthouse movies.
I figured I might get ten or twenty responses from women who wanted to meet other women in ways that involved a bit more than alcohol and window-shopping. In fact, what started off fairly slow has now grown to 100 women. You might think that someone who was interested in such a group would be a different type of thinker, or at least a risk-taker. Sadly, that hasn't been the case.
Most are more than content to sit back on their duffs and let someone else do the work and plan the events. Interestingly, they're the same ones who say they will join in a particular outing then don't bother to show up.
I won't go so far as to say that it's typical of lesbians, but it might be just one indication of why this community is so fractured. No respect, no initiative, no reaching beyond the confines of the comfort zone. I guess I think it's comical because they're also the first ones to complain, about everything. *sigh*
I was sitting at home one night trolling some of the dating websites when it occurred to me that there really wasn't a way to meet people (well, women) that didn't involve a bar, alcohol, or flag football. I got the idea to start a list-serve, a Yahoo! group, a bunch of women who might want to meet once in a while to have dinner or coffee, conversation that wasn't shouted over the din of music, maybe some arts & culture stuff or arthouse movies.
I figured I might get ten or twenty responses from women who wanted to meet other women in ways that involved a bit more than alcohol and window-shopping. In fact, what started off fairly slow has now grown to 100 women. You might think that someone who was interested in such a group would be a different type of thinker, or at least a risk-taker. Sadly, that hasn't been the case.
Most are more than content to sit back on their duffs and let someone else do the work and plan the events. Interestingly, they're the same ones who say they will join in a particular outing then don't bother to show up.
I won't go so far as to say that it's typical of lesbians, but it might be just one indication of why this community is so fractured. No respect, no initiative, no reaching beyond the confines of the comfort zone. I guess I think it's comical because they're also the first ones to complain, about everything. *sigh*
July 10, 2006
July 02, 2006
Hail to El Presidente ___________?
Voters in Mexico (and a few abroad) are awaiting the results of Sunday's elections for a new president, 500+ member congress, and mayor of Mexico City. The two main contenders to succeed Vincente Fox as president are conservative, Harvard-educated Felipe Calderon, who favors globalizing Mexico's economy, and leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, champion of the poor underclass. Calderon is favored in the northern states while Lopez Obrador has a solid hold on the southern, including Oaxaca and Chiapas. But it may be some time before a clear winner is known, because polls were banned for the election, and the country lacks expedient vote counting methods.
A Lopez Obrador victory will continue the trend of electing leftist leaders in Latin and South American countries: Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Bachelet in Chile. It may also drastically alter relations between Mexico and the United States, because Lopez Obrador has vowed to renegotiate key provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was instituted largely on the premise of improving Mexico's economy (although it has done no such thing).
For certain reasons, I would like to see Lopez Obrador win. Unfortunately, he would not be in office long enough to bring substantive change to Mexico's political system nor to significantly improve the country's economy, but he can be instrumental in laying the groundwork. As corrupt as Mexico's government has been for decades, and for all of the unrealized intentions of NAFTA, Mexico's people deserve opportunities to achieve their potential in the global marketplace. Maybe, under the stewardship of Lopez Obrador, the country will finally see its foreign aid applied properly -- not to benefit government officials and cronies, but toward improving infrastructure that will create the jobs necessary to improve standards of living for the overwhelming majority of poor citizens.
On the other hand, Calderon has the substantive government experience that Lopez Obrador lacks, even if he does have ties with Carlos Slim, the world's third-richest man and owner of TelMex and TelCel, monopolies that have all of Mexico's fixed- and cellular-phone services. If Calderon can set aside leniency toward vested interests and, among other things, get corporations like TelMex and Pemex (the petroleum monopoly) to pony up sufficient taxes to subsidize major social reform, he can do Mexico a world of good.
Who knows? Someday the immigration problem could be reversed: at the rate the United States is going, I and others would gladly deport ourselves to Mexico in a heartbeat if jobs were available as well as decent places to live.
A Lopez Obrador victory will continue the trend of electing leftist leaders in Latin and South American countries: Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Bachelet in Chile. It may also drastically alter relations between Mexico and the United States, because Lopez Obrador has vowed to renegotiate key provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was instituted largely on the premise of improving Mexico's economy (although it has done no such thing).
For certain reasons, I would like to see Lopez Obrador win. Unfortunately, he would not be in office long enough to bring substantive change to Mexico's political system nor to significantly improve the country's economy, but he can be instrumental in laying the groundwork. As corrupt as Mexico's government has been for decades, and for all of the unrealized intentions of NAFTA, Mexico's people deserve opportunities to achieve their potential in the global marketplace. Maybe, under the stewardship of Lopez Obrador, the country will finally see its foreign aid applied properly -- not to benefit government officials and cronies, but toward improving infrastructure that will create the jobs necessary to improve standards of living for the overwhelming majority of poor citizens.
On the other hand, Calderon has the substantive government experience that Lopez Obrador lacks, even if he does have ties with Carlos Slim, the world's third-richest man and owner of TelMex and TelCel, monopolies that have all of Mexico's fixed- and cellular-phone services. If Calderon can set aside leniency toward vested interests and, among other things, get corporations like TelMex and Pemex (the petroleum monopoly) to pony up sufficient taxes to subsidize major social reform, he can do Mexico a world of good.
Who knows? Someday the immigration problem could be reversed: at the rate the United States is going, I and others would gladly deport ourselves to Mexico in a heartbeat if jobs were available as well as decent places to live.
June 30, 2006
The Supreme Court "gets" religion
I listened to the NPR coverage this morning on the Supreme Court's decision with regard to Dubya's Guantanomo tribunals, probably the only true "victory" the current Court has or will grant that respects human rights.
But the decision sort of missed the point with regard to the absolute futility of torturing prisoners, specifically those of Islamic faith. (From here, I'm mostly conjecturing, but bear with me.)
The core belief of a religion -- whether Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam -- is that [the applicable] god will protect and sustain adherents through life's trials while promising absolution and forgiveness in death. The torture rendered at places such as Guantanomo and Abu Graib becomes life for the prisoner victims, another inevitable trial to be endured by the faithful.
So the question is: Why haven't these government and military yahoos figured out that true believers will endure any hardship for the ultimate goal of eternal absolution? Is it because Christians (and Compassionate Conservatives) have their own limits and know full well that, in similar circumstances, they would sell their own souls to achieve immediate relief?
But the decision sort of missed the point with regard to the absolute futility of torturing prisoners, specifically those of Islamic faith. (From here, I'm mostly conjecturing, but bear with me.)
The core belief of a religion -- whether Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam -- is that [the applicable] god will protect and sustain adherents through life's trials while promising absolution and forgiveness in death. The torture rendered at places such as Guantanomo and Abu Graib becomes life for the prisoner victims, another inevitable trial to be endured by the faithful.
So the question is: Why haven't these government and military yahoos figured out that true believers will endure any hardship for the ultimate goal of eternal absolution? Is it because Christians (and Compassionate Conservatives) have their own limits and know full well that, in similar circumstances, they would sell their own souls to achieve immediate relief?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)