I have been spending much of this week trapped in a lounge chair in front of the television. What I have seen isn’t pretty. First this woman says something is missing from her life, and it turns out to be a bigger butt. So she heads off to Dr 90210 for implants. Then Oprah says she does not consider herself lucky at all, that she’s earned her success and exemplifies the American Dream. I kept thinking they were both being ironic, waiting for them to crack up at the ridiculousness of their statements, but neither one of them did. They were dead serious.

What’s it like to live in a culture so spiritually dead that someone could consider butt implants the key to happiness? What’s it like to live in a culture so obsessed with individuality that someone could consider herself entitled to billions of dollars just by being a talking head? …

…Is this really what “America” means? Commodified bodies to go with commodified religion, everything marketed, marketable, even our bodies and our souls? It’s so obviously out of whack that I cannot believe I even need to comment on this, but every time I do I am reminded that voices like mine don’t hold center stage. Why? Because I’ve got nothing to sell except the insistence that we need to stop buying. There’s no advertising revenue in that, is there Oprah? Guess I won’t be a billionaire like you.

–Diana York Blaine, The Adventures of Diana York Blaine: And Now a Word From the Oracle

Diana York Blaine is a recent discovery. I learned of her on another blog which mentioned that she’d taken some photos of herself without a shirt or bra which resulted in a fracas rumbling into her personal and professional lives. (What is it about women’s breasts that are so taboo in some contexts and yet so tantalizing on others?) I went to her Flickr site to see them. I found nothing offensive. Wait, I misspoke: I did find something offensive there; the nasty comments left by some people pointing out what they felt she lacked, how her waist needs to be trimmer, how her body doesn’t match the “ideal” standard of beauty. What I saw in the photos was a normal woman. In fact, in one photo she said she was competing with a painting on the wall, and the woman in the painting looked much the same! Diana is a feminist philosopher at the University of Southern California. We are the same age, and I’ve found a kindred soul; she is pursuing a career and life path that might have been mine if I’d taken some different turns a long time back. Oh, that we only get one life! There’s so much to learn and do and be. Through Diana I can vicariously experience some of it.

Speaking of Oprah, I read about her South African school for girls that will open soon. I applaud the good intention, but not her exclusivity. Of the thousands of girls deserving education, she selected only 150 to attend. Winfrey chose expensive designer furniture, china, and even the uniforms. She wants the girls to experience the sense they deserve good things, with the notion being their self-esteem and confidence will grow. Maybe so, but does it cost $40 million dollars to do this for 150 girls? Will huge fireplaces in every building really contribute to creating “beauty that inspires” as she claims? Oprah was quoted: “I wanted this to be a place of honor for them because these girls have never been treated with kindness. They’ve never been told they are pretty or have wonderful dimples. I wanted to hear those things as a child.” Um, kindness is not expressed in fancy china or color-matched rugs and couches. How about spending less money on commodities and hiring more excellent teachers to shower the girls with kindness through teaching their minds, mentoring their spirits, and nurturing their souls?

And why is she devoting so much effort and money to girls in South Africa? I’m not contending they are undeserving. It’s just that there are many girls in America that could use the same assistance. If she spent less money in South Africa, perhaps she could do more in both places. But no, here is her explanation.

Oprah also knows that some people will complain that charity should begin at home, even though she has provided millions of dollars to educate poor children in the United States, especially via her Oprah Winfrey Scholars Program. But she sees the two situations as entirely different. “Say what you will about the American educational system — it does work,” she says. “If you are a child in the United States, you can get an education.” And she doesn’t think that American students — who, unlike Africans, go to school free of charge — appreciate what they have. “I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn’t there,” she says. “If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don’t ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school.”

She is entirely free to allocate her philanthropy however she chooses, but her explanation sounds more like giving up on the youth here.

I believe Jonathan Kozol would have much to say about that. Here’s an excerpt from his website:

Education is taken for granted in modern American society. If a child cannot afford to attend a private or parochial school, which are generally seen as better than the alternative, then they go to public school. The assumption is made, because of compulsory attendance laws, and the societal emphasis on childhood learning, no matter what, a child is getting an education. Unfortunately, attendance is not a prerequisite for education. A child in a classroom faces many obstacles that should not be faced at such an early age. Instead of the next spelling test that pupil must deal with issues from discrimination to shoddy facilities to a lack of funding per pupil. In some communities children are bussed forty miles to their schools. The difference between the spending of suburban communities per student and urban communities per student is quite enormous. How can our society expect to survive when under-privileged urban children are not even being given the chance to compete on an equal footing with their suburban counterparts? Children should be allowed to be children. No child should ever bear the burden of adult concerns until they are ready. For the past thirty-five years, Jonathon Kozol has been an advocate for children. He points out the discrepancies that make our educational system so blatantly hypocritical. He is not the only advocate of the forgotten pupil, yet he has been among the most vocal and active.

I’ve read many of Kozol’s books, all of which are compelling; he is one of my heroes for his tireless efforts to change an unresponsive culture. You can read more at his website.

I recommend The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America, an updated critique of public education; it follows up on his original work, Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools, in which he assessed schools he visited from 1988-1990.