Wednesday, April 28, 2010

AZ - A Racist Zone?

So I couldn't stay away from it.
AZ passes a bill basically shredding the 4th amendment rights of its citizens (yes, citizens... well at least the brown skin ones).


The Jurist notes Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling

The amazing thing here is how the GOP is handling it. On the local AZ level the Governor is in a tight reelection and signs the law saying something like "We had to act because of the inaction of the federal government!".

So around the country we have Republican lawmakers supporting the decision of the AZ Gov. by holding up their hands saying "Gosh, what else could she have possibly done?"

And then everyone looks at Congress to say "so what's up?" and we all remember now why the immigration bill didn't go through last year. THE GOP BLOCKED IT!
(See the thing with our Government is we keep writing stuff down... don't believe that the GOP killed it? See for yourself:
So as the GOP continues to be on the wrong side of the immigration debate - which is insane as the number of businesses demanding immigration reform is huge, groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, and newspapers like the Wall Street Journal....

And because of the awful rhetoric used they lost the Hispanic and Asian demographic in a big way in the '08 election.

Some in the GOP are at least politically savvy enough to get it... Dick Armey notes that Hispanics are the fasted growing demographic in American, and then says the GOP seems to be saying, "Let's go out and alienate them." And ol' Dick isn't the first to be saying it.

So how's it going for them this year?

From Politico: "It’s just the start of the 2010 election season, and Republican candidates are already lining up to use the same old anti-immigrant rhetoric."

We already know what the Governor in AZ did.

And as the the Alabama gubernatorial race is heating up after Republican candidate Tim James released a controversial "We speak English" ad.

But now I find this:

GOPer: I Support Deporting American Citizens Whose Parents Are Illegal Immigrants (VIDEO)

I can't believe the stupidity of the GOP. Seriously.

Touching Strangers

Today a little break from the world of politics... Though with AZ trying to be the most racist state in the nation it's a bit hard.

But I stumbled upon this and couldn't help but share:Touching Strangers is an ongoing photographic project by photographer Richard Renaldi. In it he asks strangers, both to each other and to him, to pose with the stipulation that they must be touching. It's an amazing photo essay which touched my heart and, as he says, makes me "think about how relate physically to one another" and entertains "the possibility that there is unlimited potential for new relationship with almost everybody passing by."

Take a look.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

(Cross-posted in entirety from Ephphatha Poetry)

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.

Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care. His latest book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place.

Update - Tim was interviewed on CNN about this topic... Take a look here.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Remember this outrage?

Back from Sunday Apr 19, 2009


DHS issued a report suggesting some right wing groups may get violent?


How did the GOP react?









What do we do now?


And they keep talking....

Take a listen to this interview

And....


And now they're calling for an Armed March on Washington!

Not just the "Party of No"

So in this video here... John McCain is campaigning for reelection to the Senate. He brings in Sarah Palin to energize his base. I suppose it does. There are some protesters who get pushed around and ejected from the event.

What caught my attention is the parting clip from McCain himself...

McCain: "We're not the party of No like Sarah said, we're the party of Hell NO!"

He then leads them in a chant.



I suppose running against something can be politically expedient at times but it seems very short sighted to me.

Elect me, I'll say Hell No!

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Pat Robertson - “Dude, STFU.”

Cross-posted in it's entirety from The Baltimore Sun - In Good Faith: A blog for news and discussion on matters of faith

January 14, 2010
Guest post: A message for Pat Robertson

The Rev. Jason Poling is pastor of New Hope Community Church in Pikesville.

It’s been said that if you give an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters an infinite amount of time they will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. Then again, this scenario may explain the genesis of the blogosphere.

There’s a basic principle to keeping blogs healthy: Don’t feed the trolls. Every blog has them, the people who delight in vituperative attacks on others (known as “flaming”), obnoxiously long screeds, and monopolizing the virtual conversation. But if you engage the actual content of his remarks, you will find yourself sucked into a black hole of back-and-forth posts involving bad logic, worse grammar and endless frustration. It’s a lot like arguing with a four-year-old: the minute you start, you’ve lost, because in doing so you have effectively declared that a rational adult ought to seriously debate the merits of sleeping under all of the blankets in the closet sorted first by color then by texture.

But there is a remedy: the universal shorthand “Dude, STFU” which translates to “Kindly be quiet.” This treatment, which only works if applied sparingly, essentially declares: “What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. Nothing good will come of discussing it with you. You’re annoying everyone on this blog. So cut it out.” Such an approach steadfastly and resolutely refuses to reason with the unreasonable, to join a battle of wits with the unarmed, to punch the tar baby.

Much the same principle applies to the outlying voices in our media landscape. There may have been some gaps in my seminary education, for I cannot begin to fathom how I might evaluate Pat Robertson’s claim that the entire nation of Haiti in the course of its battle for independence made a pact with the devil. What would be the text of such a pact? Would everyone in the nation need to agree to it? Every adult? A majority, or perhaps a super-majority? Would it need to be signed in blood? The mind boggles.

In much the same way, I have difficulty finding handles with which I might begin to grapple with other ideas promoted by Robertson: that Hurricane Katrina constituted an exercise of God’s wrath against New Orleans for its wickedness, or that 9/11 happened when God withdrew his protection from America when some obscure ACLU lawsuit was filed somewhere that morning and he decided he had simply had enough.

But I think maybe I’m not supposed to. That would be a relief, because I have absolutely no interest in feeding this troll. I don’t want to begin to engage his statements because I do not want to effectively declare that a rational adult ought to seriously debate whether a particular nation’s misfortunes derive from a binding contract with the Prince of Darkness executed over 200 years ago. I certainly do not want to engage these ideas when that nation’s capital lies in ruins with tens of thousands of its citizens, if not more, lying dead in the wake of a massive earthquake.

No, all I really want to say to Pat Robertson is, “Dude, STFU.”

Monday, January 11, 2010

Global Con-spir-a-cy

So I don't have the time right now to talk about the War for Your Mind contained in the Right's talking points.

But I thought this guy clearly explains the 'hoax' of Global Climate Change that's recently been 'uncovered' by some emails.



About him: "I've been a journalist for 20 years, 14 years as a science correspondent. My degree is in geology, but while working for a science magazine and several science programs I had to tackle a number of different fields, from quantum physics to microbiology."

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Captain Obvious Strikes again - in the War for your Mind this time

I normally don't get hysterical watching the news but Rep. Peter King (Republican representing Long Island) was quoted saying the most remarkable thing...

Following the attempted bombing of the Delta airlines flight into Detroit there has been a lot of chatter about the need to profile Muslims. He is clear to point out that the majority of Muslims are good people and then spews this line:

"One hundred percent of the Islamic terrorists are Muslims"

Really? You mean there is a link between Islam and Muslims? Whoever thinks that Members of Congress are elected because of their superior intellect are sadly mistaken.

Honestly, I almost spit my coffee out I was laughing so hard.

(You can watch the clip that include King's remarks here. His Captain Obvious statement comes in at the 1:25 mark.)

Side note: I liked it when the former CIA analyst took on profiling by saying: "Look, I think when people make an argument for racial profiling they’re either lazy, they’re either arrogant, or frankly they’re racist."

As we move into the War on your Mind section of the post, please take a moment to watch this clip where talking heads are talking about profiling.

Perhaps there can be an intelligent conversation about profiling... Right? Do we need to pull a 78 year old Mexican grandmother out of line to question her? Even if we wanted to engage in the debate listen again as to how the question was framed....

"Are the political correctness police putting our safety at risk?"

(at the 3:00 mark just before the break)
(and then again at the 3:15 mark just after returning from the break)

"Is political correctness jeopardizing our security in the sky?"

(Sidebar: Note the use of fear. It's like those teasers for the 11:00 news. "Can the common household cleaners you have in your home right now, KILL YOUR CHILDREN? Tune in at 11 to find out". Seriously - if there is something serious enough to kill my children you should tell us now.)

OK - back to the War for your Mind. What's happening here?

Any real debate on the merits of profiling need to happen within a different context. Is it feasible to pull out all Muslims? First off, how do you tell if someone is a Muslim? You can't. Ideology isn't seen. But let's put this aside and put down the fear mongering.

Is this 'Political Correctness' that is preventing us from doing this? No. Are there 'Political Correctness police'? No.

In our great nation we have laws that govern our land and protect people from unreasonable search and seizure (it's in the Constitution, look it up). So it is our Constitution and our laws that say we can't stop and search someone without a reasonable cause. Not political correctness.

But when the argument is framed as political correctness, people think that it's just silly, naive liberals who want to create a 'magical Utopia'. Right? The reason that the terrorist was almost able to kill all those people is simply because of some 'political correctness'. That is, we were somehow afraid of offending his (or others) sensibilities so he was let on the plane.

Within the American culture it is widely held that the political correct movement has come from the Left. So this links the Left with preventing America from protecting itself. And why? As we see here, it's framed again in terms of political correctness - of 'offending someone':

When Professor Fair (of Peace Studies) says "
One-third of the world's population is Muslim. Trying to treat every single Muslim as a terrorist is simply untenable, it's fearmongering" she presents a cogent argument suggesting that trying to lump billions of people into a group for extra screening isn't a practical or realistic solution.

Gallagher responds: "
Who are you afraid of offending Christine? Al Qaeda? " (5:15 mark).

So again, this isn't about coming up with realistic solutions to these problems, it's about framing a political group as being 'weak' when it comes to defending America. And why do we say they are weak? Because they are afraid to 'offend' people. Gallagher's remark pulls the debate to the extreme. Can we realistically profile that many people? (a reasonable question) answered with : 'of course, the only thing that is stopping us is that YOU ARE AFRAID OF OFFENDING Al QAEDA'.

I'd say it's a bizare leap of logic, but the logic behind it isn't resting in the merits of the debate, it rests in how the debate is perceived.

Several times you hear Professor Fair state "I'm not opposed to profiling", but that is flatly ignored. Why? Because having someone from the Left say that there could be reasonable profiling, but it's complicated, doesn't fit with the image that they are trying to produce.

In the
War on your Mind, this conversation is trying to convince you that because the Left doesn't buy into simplistic, unrealistic solutions, they are weak. From the way the question was asked, there was no real debate.

What if the moderator asked, "Is our Constitution up to the task of protecting us or should we cut back on the Rights it affords to us?" You think the conversation would play out differently?

There is a War for your Mind.

Thursday, December 3, 2009