Showing posts with label equality and justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality and justice. Show all posts

Sunday, October 31, 2010

For-Profit Education?

For-profit education? Talk about unAmerican. And at taxpayer expense? Okay, well, that is American.

Let's also remember what life is like in places where the only education is limited to the private, for-profit sector of the economy. . . . Not pretty, huh?

via Portside:

When For-Profits Target Low-Income Students
Arnold L. Mitchem, 10.26.10, 12:00 PM ET

Saturday, August 28, 2010

What Really Matters

In honor of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, I decided to post on issues the Movement would be concerned about:

Poverty in the United States

  • Over 37 million people in the United States lived in poverty in 2007
    • The number of people living in poverty has increased by almost 6 million since 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008
    • Over 15.5 million people lived below half of the poverty line in 2007. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008
    • 37 percent of households headed by women with children present lived in poverty in 2007. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008
    • In 2007, the poverty threshold for a family of four was $21,203. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008
  • Children in the United States have the highest poverty rate of all age groups
    • Over 13 million children (age 18 and younger) lived in poverty in 2007. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008
    • The poverty rate for children was 18 percent in 2007—much higher than the poverty rates for adults 18-64 (10.9 percent) and for the elderly (9.7 percent). U.S. Census Bureau, 2008
    • A family of four generally needs to earn twice the poverty threshold to provide children with basic necessities. National Center for Children in Poverty, 2008
  • Employment alone is not always sufficient to provide a family’s basic needs
    • 55 percent of children in low-income families have at least one parent who works full-time, year-round. National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP), 2008
    • 36 percent of households receiving emergency food assistance had at least one employed adult. Feeding America, 2007 (Formerly America’s Second Harvest)
    • In 2005, 25 percent of all workers earned a poverty level hourly wage.Economic Policy Institute, 2008
  • Minorities and immigrants are disproportionately affected by poverty
    • 24.5 percent of black and 21.5 percent of Hispanic people live in poverty, compared to 8.2 percent of white people. 34.5 percent of black and 28.6 percent of Hispanic children live in poverty, compared to 15 percent of white children. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008
    • 16.5 percent of foreign born US residents experience poverty versus 11.9 percent of native born residents. This number is particularly high among immigrants who have not naturalized, at 21.3 percent.U.S. Census Bureau, 2008

Monday, June 29, 2009

Ruling from Ideology

I've been around the last week. I'm up on everything. Can't get over Michael. He was just an incredible, once in ever artist. I'll never reach his level on music heights. And I wonder what would've come had he gone into acting. Or, if he had gotten some help. I won't even lie, I even wonder if the man was just a musical savant and a little diminished in other areas.

But I do hope that I can have the same impact when it comes to humanitarianism and people's lives in the area of social justice.

So, I've been watching the lastest, and the latest from the Supreme Court has me even more determined to help bring about justice and righteousness. And you know it was 5-4. Stank Kennedy. He must've been one of those other Kennedy's, you know? (Listen, if you don't understand the snide comment I'm making, please ask about it before you assume something stupid.) And for my white readers or any one of y'all just passing through, this is why Uncle Clarence gets his own title.

I swear! Just read the article and let me know what you think. And if you got something smart to say but didn't read the article, oh, I will be drawing blood. Make no mistake about it. And just so we're clear, yes, I'm saying this decision is racist. Yes, I'm saying the fact that we have so many "empathetic" white male judges not only influenced the outcome; but, at least 3 of'em are racist. Plain and tall.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

My Thoughts Are Clear(er) . . . Again?

Okay, so here's what bothers me about all the white male conservative whining over Judge Sotomayor: at the end of their logic is this - the only people who can render objective (not objectionable, which would be hilarious, right?) are white men. This means that white men's reality is reality and correct me if I'm wrong but that's what's gotten this country into trouble even as recently as 2008 with 2 unnecessary wars and economic collapse: white male "reality."
Tim Wise has an elucidating, if a bit gruff, piece here.

That said, I am a bit trouble about the fact that her ruling against minorities in discrimination cases 80% of the time is talked about like it's a good thing. Sure, it proves that the whiners are lying. That said, don't the facts of life - the minorities experience a hefty amount of discrimination and much, much more than whites face "reverse" discrimination - how is it a good thing that she ruled against the minority 80% of the time. Is that the national average or something? That only 20% of the minority-discrimination cases brought before the circuit court or legit?

Now, apparently, she only ruled in one case that actually questioned discrimination based on race, and not a technicality of a lower court decision or something like that. In that one case, she agreed with the plaintiff, a kindergartner alleging racism in the decision to prevent his transferring. - You know? There may be quite a few kids in my area who can make such claims. - So she doesn't appear to me, at least, to be a threat to civil rights.

But I'm still not happy that that statistic, 80%, is being held up with some kind of virtue. What?

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

I'm Joining In

I really haven't studied up on Judge Sotomayor, so there's nothing I can tell you that you can't find somewhere else. Which is why I'm sharing this NY Times link: "Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee."

What I will say is that I like this pick. I like the added diversity of enthnicity, background, and perspective. I also like what I've read about the decisions she's made on the circuit court. The conservative poo-poo by Wendy E Long in the article is just ridiculous and nonsensical; hense, why I'm calling it poo-poo.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Coming Soon . . .

. . . a complete explanation of my views concerning Rick Warren giving the invocation at Barack Obama's inaugural celebration.

I have to perserve my energy tonight and am going to bed early. But let me just quickly say I think both activists on the right and left are ill-served in their ranting against Pastor Rick's invocation.

And, let me first point out some contradictions. First of all, there're lots of gays and lesbians who don't believe in God anyway. You're concerned about presumably a 90 second prayer? And there're lots of gays and lesbians who consider themselves otherwise socially conservative and supported Bush twice and most recently McCain.

Now, I think it is an understatement to say that the passing of proposition 8 was not a moment to celebrate. I empathize with the LGBT community on many concerns: being compared to pedophiles is no more endearing than being compared to monkeys.

Now, I'm heterosexual. I don't consider my heterosexuality a "choice." It just so happens that I'm a woman who's sexually attracted to men. And this is something I've struggled with for a while. I was a tomboy growing up. There was a period of time when I didn't care how I looked, most especially on days I had basketball practice. I've been hit on by lesbians. I can certainly appreciate the sight of an attractive woman; and, given the choice to watch a movie with Angelina Jolie or Miss Jane Pittman, I'll choose Angelina Jolie. Depending on the movie, I may even choose her over George Clooney. But not over Taye Diggs.

One of the most influential women in my life is gay I believe. She was my professor, and I never felt it appropriate to ask about her sexuality. I think she's gay, though, because in a book she wrote, she acknowledges the love and support of her partner, [feminine name here]. Before I ever wondered about her sexuality, I considered her presence in my life a blessing. Assuming she's gay . . . it didn't change her impact on my life. After reading her book and the acknowledgements, I couldn't very well suddenly decide that her impact was somehow less than I originally thought. Neither can I look her in the eye and tell her who she can and can't be with.

So, I've struggled with my own sexuality till one day, sitting still and quiet, I finally accepted the fact that I love sports, can appreciate good looks even in other women, and am heterosexual. See, the thought of being with a women sexually repulses me as much as I imagine a gay man is repulsed.

And now, having said all that, I can't find it in myself to hold against someone their sexuality when, except for the fact that I'm not, I could be gay, too. And would want every right accorded everyone else. And, being straight, I can't hate on you for what was no more a choice for you than heterosexuality a choice for me.

Now, while I sympathize with the LGBT community and feel justice and inequality is for everyone everywhere, I think we're mistaken to declare the "honeymoon" with President-elect Obama over when he has yet to make a policy decision. And the LGBT community and their supporters are being no more tolerant than "Christian" conservatives to wish that Warren be excluded. Especially when Rev. Joseph Lowery, who supports same-sex marriage, is giving the benediction. I hardly see Warren's part in the celebration as a signal that the LGBT community won't have a seat at the table. From everything I've witnessed during the entire campaign and election, the only way the LGBT community won't have a seat is if the LGBT community doesn't take a seat - and all because of who else is at the table? How is that any different from what the LGBT community is railing against?

And really. How is this guilt by invitation any different from the way the right smeared Obama for his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger.

The bigger issue to protest is Warren's advocation of the assasination of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

So, I must rest now. More later.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Racism and the Way to Reconciliation

Let me first apologize to nonAfrican American minorities. I’m much more learned and versed to race relations as it pertains to white Americans and black Americans. The process to reconciliation is pretty much the same, though, if that helps.

As we begin this conversation, let’s first address some issues we know are fact. For example, fact: anti-black/African racism is pervasive in America.

Here are some other facts. Due to this racism, African Americans are at a disadvantage in all the following areas: school discipline; academic tracking; health care and medical treatment; criminal justice; employment; income; wealth accumulation; and, other areas.

Fact: affirmative action does minorities good while not displacing white Americans.

Fact: white Americans often hold greater anti-black bias than they are willing to admit ("Mapping White College Students' Racial Ideology" by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Tyrome Forman).

Fact: when white supremacy is challenged, white supremacy being pro-white bias, white Americans often deny its existence and demonstrate even greater anti-black bias ("Racial Attitudes in Response to Thoughts of White Privilege" by Nyla R. Branscombe and Michael T Schmitt).

Fact: white Americans are poor detectors of racism unless it’s blatant. This and the two previous facts prevent the overwhelming majority of white Americans from having anything beneficial to contribute to a conversation on racial reconciliation. And as black Americans are the ones who suffer from anti-black bias held by society at large, I feel it’s only fair that we (and other minorities) determine the terms of conversation. And I know telling others to shut-up is just not done; and, my prohibition on most white American contribution is harsh. But how else do we solve a problem that most white Americans deny either in quality and quantity, personal responsibility, or just outright deny?

And I only prohibit most, not all. Those white Americans who see themselves not as white or even American and/or those who are willing to endure the brunt of years of pent up anger may have something usable to contribute. I dare not refuse them the opportunity to speak. You would do well to do more listening than talking if your contribution sounds something like this: everyone is racist; what about reverse-racism?; why do we always have to focus on white people’s racism?; I wasn’t there, therefore it’s not my fault; how dare you suggest I have nothing to contribute! That’s racism; you’re making me feel uncomfortable, therefore I will disengage; etc and et al. In other words, if your response is a defensive one, please, keep it to yourself. Or, better yet, forget it altogether.

Now, this is not to say that white Americans should place the burden of finding a way to racial harmony on black Americans. This isn't to say that white Americans have absolutely nothing to contribute. This is to say, however, that your reflexive defensive responses aren't getting us anywhere. And that's a fact.

Fact: African Americans don’t ally with each other on the basis of skin color or even on similar culture; we find solidarity amongst each other on the basis of a common struggle against anti-black bias. It’s not our heritage, not our history that binds us. We are bound together by our common cause of true justice and racial equality.

Fact: there is no problem within the Black Community that an end to white supremacy won’t solve (taken from a quote by Tim Wise, a white anti-racist activist). Therefore, we will not discuss problems within the Black Community as though they don’t exist elsewhere and under other conditions.

I will, however, discuss a path towards racial harmony. It is simple. Perhaps easier said than done, but simple.

White Americans must stop identifying their whiteness in terms of its superior position to others. That is to say, be white and proud. Be proud of your families and neighborhoods. But you cannot continue taking pride in the success you have that others do not, or cannot, attain. The fact is your success sometimes comes at a price that others pay or is success others don't have the opportunity to attain. Hard words to hear, I’m sure. But true.

This brings me to my next point. White Americans must stop defining truth and reality. Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke the truth. He lives in reality. If there is going to be racial reconciliation, white Americans have to quit calling the truth a lie and reality a fantasy.

Now, let’s address American history. First and perhaps most importantly, it would be nice if the truth was taught in our schools and colleges. Our “Founding Fathers” enjoyed great success and the leisure to achieve their accomplishments due to the wealth that African slavery and the African slave trade generated. And just as white Americans point to Europe as the beginning of the American tale, so too is there a tale to be told from Africa. She should speak as well.

Before you start on your guilt trip, no one is blaming you for what happened in the past. It’s true that none of us were there. What’s also true is that there is yet a debt that has not been paid. There remain stolen goods, if you will, that have not been returned. Yes, it’s true that all the slaves and even their sons and daughters have died. What’s also true, however, is that money doesn’t die; it gains compound interest.

And presently, white Americans everyday enjoy undue advantages based on the color of their skin.

So what’s the answer? How do we go from racial tension to racial harmony?

Well, integration is only part of the solution. That solution being true equality. Address everyone’s history and literature and contributions to mathematics and science. Fund all schools the same amount of money, regardless of the property-value of the neighborhood. Promote students based on their actual standardized test scores, not on what you imagine their ability to be. Diagnose and treat each patient’s ailment, not their race. Only pull over a driver who has actually broken a traffic law. Punish the crime, not the person. And so on and so forth.

And why isn’t integration the sole answer? Just because white students sit next to black students doesn’t mean an end to racism. This is especially so since whiteness is taught as superior. White American dialect is the standard; white American dialect is “proper.” European and white American literature and music are classics. If, instead, literature and music from across the globe were taught as equals, we would see white supremacy begin to fall. If African American vernacular English were treated as an equal dialect, even if not the academic or business dialect, white supremacy would begin to crumble.

These are just my own initial suggestions and ideas. These are neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. If you really seek the end of white supremacy, you would do well to seek out other anti-racist activists.
Posted by no1kstate at 6:06 PM
Labels: Anti-Racism, Equality and Justice

Monday, April 21, 2008

'The Liberation of Reverend Wright' from The Nation

If you like this article, please consider subscribing to The Nation at special discounted rates. You can order online at https://ssl.thenation.com/sumo/EMAILARTLINK or call our toll-free number at 1-800-333-8536.

Plus, read and comment.

Also, don't mistake superficial symmetry for true equality and justice. Contrary to a comment I read at The Nation, the Black church is not equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan. ~ No1KState


The Liberation of Reverend Wright
by Eudora Smith


Chicago

The notes posted on the glass doors of Trinity United Church of Christ reflect the state of siege at Barack Obama's home church: "Media must sign in at the front desk." "No cameras or recording devices allowed inside." The press has been relentless in its pursuit of church members ever since snippets of sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, appeared on the Internet more than a month ago. Like Louis Farrakhan before him, Wright has become a litmus test for Obama with white voters. His sermons--in which he says that America is run by "rich white people" and talks about "America's chickens coming home to roost" on September 11--have been described as "racist" and "unpatriotic." As scrutiny intensified on the 8,000-member congregation, its motto, "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian," was characterized as black separatist. For many at Trinity, which I often attend, the final insult came when some journalists called the homes of sick and elderly members, whose names are published in a weekly list of "shut-ins."

Trinity's members are certainly not naive enough to think they could escape media scrutiny. But underlying the coverage of this story, which is punctuated with words like "inflammatory" and "controversial," is a sense that something is fundamentally wrong, perhaps even pathological, about Wright and the teachings at Trinity. These accounts, however, misrepresent the black church, whose rhetorical traditions meld biblical allegory with contemporary political and racial concerns, and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others. "I think that a lot of the media, articularly the mainstream media, have no experience of the everyday life of the black church...and especially what the church service on Sunday means for the black community in general," says Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School and a member of Trinity. Hopkins describes the black church as a "sacred and cultural phenomenon,'' a "way station" that functions as an antidote to the six days of the week where race matters. In the black church, race isn't a source of contention; it's a source of community.

Part of the cultural phenomenon Hopkins speaks of is a prophetic style of preaching. As Peter Gomes of Harvard University's Divinity School recently said in a Washington Post blog, "It may surprise many in white America, for whom Martin Luther King Jr. is the only black preacher of whom they have ever heard, to learn that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there who week after week give expression to that classic definition of prophetic preaching that is to 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.'"

The Rev. Otis Moss III, Trinity's current pastor, echoed that theme in an April sermon linked to the fortieth anniversary of the assassination of King. Like the prophets of the Bible, and Jesus himself, who called out the moral failings of the powerful, King took America to task for racism and poverty, Moss said. Grasping the connection with their own embattled senior pastor, the congregation exploded in shouts of "Tell it!" and "Make it plain!"

For many black churchgoers, the attack on Wright is an assault on how they choose to worship. Though the black church is not without its flaws and shortcomings--on more than one occasion, Wright has called out the behavior of other black ministers, and the rise of prosperity teachings has cut into the tradition of afflicting the comfortable--it has endured as a powerful cultural and social institution because it is needed. As long as racism exists, the church provides a sanctuary for many black folks.

Rooted in the secret gatherings of slaves in the South who were introduced to Christianity by "plantation missionaries," the church has fed the spirit, while at the same time organizing and tending to the most basic physical needs of its members, explains James Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary. "The black church was the only thing we owned," says Cone, an architect of Black Liberation Theology whose teaching has influenced Trinity. "It was both a spiritual and political institution."

Wright may be Obama's litmus test, but the treatment of African-Americans, brought to this country chained in the belly of slave ships, has been the litmus test for America's moral character. Historically, black preachers have taken the nation to task for its sin of racism. The independently owned and controlled black church allowed them the financial freedom to invoke the name of the Lord in the crusade for justice--from the days of Reconstruction to the civil rights movement, which Cone calls "the perfect expression" of the black church tradition.

Steeped in biblical symbolism and a belief in a higher moral authority, the church has been a fitting vehicle for social justice movements. The best prophetic preachers can turn the Old Testament narrative of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt into a parable about contemporary African-American tribulations, from the poll tax to police brutality to the 2000 election fraud in Florida. On Sunday, in the powerful allegory of the black church, the oppressive Pharaoh and President Bush could be one and the same.

"Trinity's preaching is very much in keeping with African-American and United Church of Christ traditions, which is to be publicly engaging--challenging government, challenging systems, challenging structures. At the same time, it is a safe space for the predominantly African-American community to speak with one's parishioners," says the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, communications director of the United Church of Christ [UCC]. "You don't have to back up. You don't have to justify. You don't have to prove it. It is shared experience." As a result, Wright's sermons don't always sit well with the uninitiated, says Guess. "Sometimes they are difficult to hear, especially if you are not accustomed to that style of worship."

Wright and Moss both draw on a prophetic style of preaching common to the black church, but Trinity's practice of Black Liberation Theology is not as widespread in the black church at large, although its principles of social justice are. The product of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, Black Liberation Theology confronted the public identity of Christianity as white and reaffirmed a Gospel that stood firmly with the oppressed. Politically, it attempted to reconcile the Christian, nonviolent identity of those who marched with King with the black, more militant identity espoused by Malcolm X.

"With the emergence of the Black Power movement, we also wanted to be black Christians who were concerned about cultural liberation--to be freely black and politically liberated to achieve the kind of freedom the civil rights movement was advocating," says Cone. "What we wanted to do was bring Malcolm and Martin together."

Another goal of Black Liberation Theology, according to Cone, was "an internal liberation" that shook off the shame of being black, which had been ground into African-Americans by the ideology of black inferiority (and white supremacy) that justified slavery. "That's why you have that cultural emphasis," Cone says.

At Trinity, the red, black and green flag (the so-called Black Liberation flag) that stands near the pulpit is an affirmation of a black identity in a country where the notion of black beauty is still called into question by the pejorative use of terms such as "nappy-headed." As one of 250 black congregations in a denomination of 5,700 churches, Trinity also reflects the UCC's traditions of social justice.

Created in 1957, the UCC traces its roots back to the "people of the Mayflower" and the early New England Congregational Church, which ordained the first African-American pastor in 1785 and the first woman pastor in 1853. The UCC ordained the first openly gay pastor in 1972. The Congregational Church's most famous role in American history was its successful legal defense of the slaves of the Amistad, who commandeered the slave ship in 1839, finally landing on Long Island, where they were arrested.

God calls members of the church to be "agents of change" and "agents of reconciliation," says Guess, explaining UCC's interpretation of the Gospel. It is this calling that is being tested in Chicago.

Each Sunday a senior member of UCC, which is based in Cleveland, attends services at Trinity to offer encouragement to members. The denomination has bought full-page ads in the New York Times and USA Today to clarify its teachings and support Trinity. The UCC and the National Council of Churches have called for a "sacred conversation" on race in churches across the nation on May 18 in the hope of developing a substantive dialogue about the issue.

Members of Trinity have been largely silent in the mainstream media, instead choosing to tell their story by posting Wright's sermons online and through testimonials that present a more complete image of the senior pastor, like a recent commentary in the Chicago Tribune by William Von Hoene Jr., a white member. He explained how Wright convinced his wife, who is African-American, that marrying him was the right thing to do, despite the challenges they might face as a couple. Breaking down racial barriers, Wright told the man, was how one made progress on issues of race.

In the sanctuary these days, there are many new white faces--a professor and his sociology students from a local university, teenagers from a church in a small rural town between Chicago and Wisconsin. These visitors are friends and supporters for whom the media controversy has inspired a journey of understanding. On a recent Sunday, Moss warned them that Trinity is a "hugging" church, and when the congregation paused from the service to greet one another, the visitors were swept into Trinity's collective embrace. Their presence is treated like the rainbow sign God sent Noah after the Flood.

But the most powerful response to the media storm surrounding Trinity is in the Sunday morning worship services. The choir sings as if attempting to pierce heaven. A wave of emotion washes over the singers, whose shouts of "Thank you, Lord!" are matched by those of the congregation, which sways side to side. The pastor's voice is as sturdy as God's trombone when he compares King to Joseph in the Old Testament, two men who suffered in this life because they dreamed of a better world. And in a display of the call-and-response tradition of the black church at its best, when Reverend Moss says, "What man meant for evil," the congregation, without a pause, replies, "God meant for good."


This article can be found on the web at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/smith


Visit The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/

Subscribe to The Nation:
https://ssl.thenation.com/

Sunday, April 6, 2008

The Role of the Church in a Democracy

It’s taken me several weeks to get my thoughts together about the Rev. Wright controversy. This recent 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr helped me put a few things in perspective.

I think there’s a mistaken belief that the Church is supposed to keep check of the morals of only its adherents, but that’s not so. It is the role of the Church to challenge not only its adherents and believers, not just society at large, but the government as well. That’s why the “Founding Fathers” instituted the separation of the Church and State. Not just to preserve the State, but also to preserve the Church.

I think everyone can agree that no Church is to be partisan. That goes without saying. That does not mean, however, that the Church is to be apolitical. The third line of the Father’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” is explicitly political. And while there seems to be some disagreement about what God’s Kingdom would mean for nations here on Earth, there can be no disagreement that God’s Kingdom doesn’t mean the United States or the United Kingdom, or any other such “Earthly” nation. The idea that the Church is not allowed to criticize the government is not only faulty, it’s a lie. If the Sacred can’t criticize the Secular, who can? Who should?

Just so we’re clear, the reason the Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing a particular religion goes beyond the mere desire not to force Methodists to pay taxes to the Baptist Church. It’s precisely so that the government can’t use the Church to promote its own agenda.

Many who reject Christianity do so based on the past of Christianity. The Church’s support of mass murder with the Inquisition and witch hunts are among its faults. The Church’s support of slavery, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and the subjugation of women just about round up the Church’s sins. But, to lay the fault of all these sins at the feet of the Church is a bit misleading. The problem with the Church wasn’t simply its support for these crimes against humanity; the problem was the Church’s historical entwining with the State. Even today, the head of the English monarchy is also head of the Anglican Church. To be sure, there were always those who spoke out against these crimes against humanity in the name of Christ. But when the Church can use the apparatus of the State, its military, to enforce its “doctrine”; and, the State can use the apparatus of the Church, its threat of excommunication, to enforce “loyalty” and "patriotism," problems arise.

So, back to the genesis of this blog. Rev. Wright wasn’t only historically and presently accurate in his accounting of the state of race in America, he was doing his job by calling out our government and citizens for our lackadaisical sense of justice – where, as it was once explained, it takes 89,000 dead Rwandans to warrant the death of 1 American. And for those of you who are so vehemently against the militarism of America, our poverty and endemic racism, even if you are not a Christian, you would do well to support Rev. Wright’s right and duty to speak against the government.

I mean, really, I have plans of speaking against it, and I have absolutely no intentions of dying for it, either. A worldwide poll was taken that found close to 90% of the world’s population believes the biggest threat to peace isn’t Islamic terrorists but the US government. Let’s add up all the deaths caused by the US and those caused by Al Qaeda and see what we find. I got the US up by several hundred thousand right now. If God/ess does judge nations, and I do believe to some extent S/He does, I think murder will rank very high against US.

Though, in the future, I hope my posts will be more finely crafted and better written than this.

Share This Article

Bookmark and Share

But Don't Jack My Genuis