How does Jon Stewart do it?

This post has been a while in the making, mostly due to a lack of time and an abundance of laziness.  So there was that amazing video of Jon Stewart's latest appearance on Bill O'Reilly, discussing Common's most recent visit (by invitation) to the White House.  Despite O'Reilly's emotional and clearly racist language about what kind of a statement the President made by inviting Common to the White House, Jon Stewart kept his calm, even cracked a few cool jokes here and there, and made his point wonderfully, beautifully, and so concisely.  We should all aspire to be this way, because by the end of the video, it's apparent O'Reilly and Stewart share this great bond of mutual respect - Stewart towards O'Reilly because he believes in being able to communicate with folks who disagree, and O'Reilly because, hell, it's apparent he got owned.  It was kind of beautiful to see, and it made me happy, to think that this was possible.

But then, I started to think of other things.  Like how that conversation-slash-debate would have gone if Jon Stewart were a woman.  Or black.  Or Asian American.  Or a black woman.  Given the same skillsets and ability to speak clearly and articulately deliver well-laid out, logical arguments, along with the knack for humor, would O'Reilly have received his guest the same way?

My answer to that is no.  I don't think that O'Reilly would have given Stewart the same kind of reception, respect, and acknowledgment if Stewart were a different race, gender, or sexual orientation.  The fact of the matter is, Jon Stewart is a heterosexual, white male, and in O'Reilly's mind as I see it, that puts Stewart on the same level in nearly every respect.  There probably would not have even been a second appearance by Stewart in the first place, if all of these things were different.

But maybe that's not giving O'Reilly enough credit?   We can't really know it, and maybe he would have treated Stewart the same regardless of those categorizations, and really just respected Stewart for his personality, charisma, and legit abilities.

My thoughts then turned to Jon Stewart himself.  He is able to deliver his arguments so rationally, calmly -- without a hint of superfluous emotion that might be seen in others in the same situation; namely, anger, defensiveness, showing signs of becoming indignant, offended, flustered, and so on.  And yes, he is a white male.  Is there a possibility that THAT gives him the ability to be so rational and perhaps, logical but emotionally disconnected, from these arguments?  As a liberal himself, sure, he understands and agrees with all these political and social issues at hand, but I would venture to say because there is a lack of personal connection, he is able to keep seeing things clearly without letting emotion get in the way.

I know that at this point now I'm just giving Stewart's race and gender too much credit.  But to me, it's a possibility.  The reason a lot of people of color, myself included, become so emotional when having these kinds of political and ideological debates, are that we simply cannot believe there are people out there who would think of US this way.  A lot of these racist, sexist, classist, and heteronormative attitudes are about US.  It is personal. 

Not to say that duplicating a Jon Stewart of color and different sexual orientation, class, and sex is impossible.  But maybe, JUST MAYBE, historical and ancestral connections just incline us to become personally offended in debates and situations like ones O'Reilly would (and does) put us in.

Then I also read this ColorLines article today, on one blogger's response to a person's ignorant thoughts about the DBSK sexual assault case.  To sum up, this person simply stated disagreement and walked away, but did document the "I wish I had..." answer.  Sometimes there are too many conversations we aren't ready to have, and as a result we don't convey the message we should have.  The emotional reaction to the offending conversation just makes us shut down and stop functioning and speaking rationally.  It's such a hard thing to control and curb.

In any case, the Stewart-O'Reilly video is a MUST SEE.  Despite considerations about experiences by lens (race, class, etc), we should still aspire to do what Jon Stewart did.  At least, to some extent, and in some situations.  It's a pick and choose your battles type of thing, but there is an unquestionable achievement to having some sort of mutual understanding, and an attitude of mutual respect with someone you politically diverge with.

Frustration and Carrying On

Been feeling frustrated with a lot of things lately, and although it's been hard to reconcile, I'm trying my best to keep it going.

When do you know when to quit?  Is there something that tells you?  Is it just when you've had enough?

Frustration has kind of been the word of the day lately, from family drama, to work, to daily struggles.  I just don't know how much more I can take.  Quitting is always easier, but nobody wants to be a quitter.

If I could just drop things easily, I would...but who knows.  Maybe my penchant for obligation (amongst other things) will pay off!  But then again, it just as well may not.  In that case it becomes one of those, "if this were your last day on Earth" kinds of things.  I think if I got rid of some of those loads I'd be much happier, but I guess there's a pleasure in getting through the hard stuff and hoping if you do it long enough, it'll get easier.

On the flipside, there are every day things that have been getting easier.  Like work (it's both good and bad), taiko (I enjoy it a lot more now and it feels good again), new pet (yay).

Maybe it's just time to phase out the negative and keep the good, at least for now.  Only time will tell if it's time to throw in the towel.  For now, I throw up my hands and call it a day.