My jones for Bomani notwithstanding, I agree with him 100%. I just want to share my thoughts and feelings now, since they're . . . more readily accessible to me at the moment.
Now, there is a reason we jump to defend people with "pristine" images: wider (ie, whiter) America can support Rosa Parks whereas Claudette Colvin presents something of a problem. For them. Me? I got a lot of respect for Colvin, and all the other men and women who've challenged, intentionally or not, our racial status quo.
As well as all the innocent and unarmed men and women who've been shot and killed by the folks who're supposed to serve and protect. And in some cases, watch.
Cause I'm sure Trayvon Martin didn't have this in mind, talking on the cell to his girlfriend while walking home with some skittles (Taste the rainbow?) for a younger brother and a can of Arizona (ironic, huh?) iced tea.
And I hella know George Zimmerman was only supposed to watch. That's watch as opposed to surveille.
"[T]he [new federal agency recently created by law], by reason of its extraordinary powers, was clearly unconstitutional..., destined to irritate [some] and paurerize [others], at a final cost of possibly hundreds of millions. ...[These] extraordinary powers...threaten the civil rights of all citizens."
Yep, change a few nouns here and there and WEB DuBois's description of the argument used by opponents to the Federal Bureau of Freedmen suddenly becomes the same arguments used by opponents of . . . well, anything Obama tries to accomplish. Cause of course, the expansion of federal powers with W Bush's creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the expansion of local police powers with Arizona's SB 1070. Well, that's just plain ole common sense "national security."
Right now, if you do a web search of the words "racism" and
"USDA," the majority of links will steer you to coverage of
this week's Shirley Sherrod affair, in which the African-
American U.S. Department of Agriculture staffer based in
Georgia resigned after a conservative website reversed the
meaning of a speech she gave last year to imply she would
deny farm loans to whites.
It's an astonishing development given the history of race
relations at the USDA, an agency whose own Commission on
Small Farms admitted in 1998 that "the history of
discrimination at the U.S. Department of Agriculture ... is
well-documented" -- not against white farmers, but African-
American, Native American and other minorities who were
pushed off their land by decades of racially-biased laws and
practices.
I've come to realize as of late a couple of things:
I do spend maybe too much energy commenting on other blogs.
My health being what it is, I can't afford not being discriminate in how I spend my energy. The thing is, righting something of scholarship takes just an inordinate amount of energy. Starting with deciding what I'm going to right about and keeping everything straight in my head. I mean, sometimes, by the time I've finished thinking out my thoughts on one issue, I've actually gone through 2 or 3 issues. Now granted, I can usually manage to remember what thought prompted another, and I can follow my logic from one argument to the next. But it can be like trying to stretch out a slinky; and as soon as I try to blog, the slinky recoils and I get slapped in the face. Because I'm trying to choose between a number of topics that're all intertwined and can all be gotten at from different angles.
Now. I don't know what training the people who ran this study have in race dynamics. And I haven't read the entire report (PDF), plus I'm tired, so I can't do a thorough analysis right now. But believe you me, if these people aren't ignorance and racist, then they're just ignorant and ignorant.
What constitutional rights are they concerned will be taken away? That's what I can't figure out. We just had a president who denied people their constitutional freedom of speech and right to privacy. He disregarded the Geneva Conventions and US law. He denied people the right of habeus corpus; sent random people to black sites; he lied us into war. And they're worried about this particular president corroding constitutional rights?
Bush Co ram the PATRIOT act through Congress in a matter of months; yet, they're worried about how fast Obama is going. Bush Co put us into two, yes two, unnecessary wars, one of which he lied to Congress about. Neither war was paid for. He signed tax cuts without paying for them. Passed Medicare Part D without paying for it. And they're worried about the debt Obama is running to get us out of this economic crisis. They even say he doesn't know anything about economics. "What? Huh?" Apparently, not only do they know nothing about economics, they know even less about history.
And all their suspicion of ACORN but nothing about the fraud of billions of dollars by likes of KBR and Halliburton and Xe (formerly Blackwater), groups who have killed soldiers and civilians. Groups who have raped American citizens working for them. Nothing.
The reason I question how much the researchers know about race dynamics is that they apparently don't know that you don't have to say "black" or "race" to be making racist statements. Certain racist themes about black people have been around so long, you don't need to say "black" or "African American" to be talking in racist terms. For instance, our part president couldn't hardly put a complete sentence together, but it's Obama whose education they question? They're "afraid" of this president because his talk is too "smooth." That doesn't smack of "jive talkin' nigger" to you?
Now, I make no exaggeration. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see this. Mainstream media isn't known honest discussion on race. And with so many people now rallying behind blue, if not white, the issue was being distorted.
I thought two points were particularly key. One, that all his diversity/racial profiling training doesn't make Sgt Crowley immune to racism. After all, Crowley says that he was "surprised and confused with the behavior" Gates showed. But why? What happened to all that racial profiling training? He should've known a black man sitting innocently in his house wouldn't be excited to have the police come question him about being in his own home! Eh, duh!
Two, observing that something done or said was racist is not the same thing as calling a person a KKK Grand Wizard bigot. Adding my on comment, white people need to quit acting like the sky is falling when they're accused of racism. Especially when chances are that you are racist. Racist and nigger ain't, and never will be, the same. And the fact that white Americans as a collective insist that it is is just an example of white privilege and narcissism. Only white people have the privilege of changing the subject to indict the accuser in ways that ignore the actions of the accused. Some in blue even suggested Pres Obama maligned all police officers by saying that Crowley had acted stupid! How exactly does that work? After all, even the Cambridge Mayor called Gates to apologize. And instead of talking about institutional racism that andthe reality of racial profiling; and really, we're not even arguing over whether or not Crowley did a racist thing, but whether or he's racist, which is besides the point!
But let me stay focused. Kudos to Don Lemon and CNN.
A commenter, Gloria, said something very interesting.
I'm gonna cut and paste cause it's easier than trying to explain it to you myself. Now, of course, she denies systemic racism. I guess this is a rhetorical question:
You truly believe the United States of America is full of horrible white supremicists who systematically practice white racism each and every day?
So of course no one had said that. That's what she thinks we think. I'd like to know if that's what all white people think of black anti-racists. But that aside, the answer to her question is fairly simple: yes.
Does this mean we think all white people are evil little devils plotting and planning how to keep black Americans from being as successful as white Americans. No! That'd be silly!
:DDDDDDD
Do I think the majority of white Americans would freak-out and have a meltdown if African Americans enjoyed the same privileges that have? Yes. You saw those "tea parties" after the first ever black president. You've heard of the recent spike in hate crimes and DHS's concerns about right-wing extremism. Can you imagine if there were employment, housing, education, and lending equality? Can you imagine if their were equality in the justice system? Can you imagine the unemployment rate being the same for all racial and ethnic groups? I mean, do I need to remind you of the race riots throughout history?
I probably do, huh? There've been anti-black race riots in Detroit, Boston, Wilmington (NC), and Tulsa (OK) just to name a few. I hope you've seen the movie Rosewood at least once. I get so angry, I've only been able to watch it once.
And recall, the construction of the interstate highway system uprooted black communities and destroyed thriving black business districts. I'll try to get more info to you about that, but this link will have to suffice until then. And there's more. I just need to move on.
So you see the historic reaction of white America to black progress.
So, no, black people don't think all white people are evil, mis-shapened creatures who only look human to us. We just think y'all are complicit and guilty in maintaining a system that by its very nature disadvantages us. If you don't like that, then stop being so complicit in the racism happening around you, and we'll think differently. Don't get me wrong. We don't think this of each and every white person. Tim Wise is cool. Joe on racismreview is cool. A couple of my high school teachers, Prof Janken at UNC. Here's a cat who seems to get it, both he and his student. Big ups to the white folks who protested the Valley Club. I mean. Every black person know at least a few white people who are honestly anti-racist. But there're 70 of you to every 13 of us. You do the math. (No seriously. My head is buzzing and AP stats is fuzzy.)
Anyway. Back to Gloria's comments.
I am a teacher during the school year, and in the summers I hostess at a restaurant here in town. I have worked with some lovely black hostesses. I have also worked with some black hostesses who celebrated being black in a negative way. They enjoyed talking the black street talk that Bill Cosby ( read my former post) detested. They knew better because they didn’t speak that way to the guests. However, they spoke that way to their fellow employees and To Me.
I’ve heard them say, endless times, if the manager reprimanded them for being late or leaving their post to take a break while the restaurant was slamming busy, “He racist! Dat why he doin’ me lak dat.” OK..so would someone respond to that please? Is poor behavior excusable Because You’re Black?
I did respond. I pointed out that what her coworkers were probably referring to was that when white workers were late or left their post, the manager didn't speak to them in the same disrespectful, condescending tone. I asked if possibly there were a difference in how the manager reprimanded everyone. Gloria didn't answer my question.
Here's the kicker and what inspired this post:
I know many lovely black people. Funny..I never hear them yell racist! They just go about their business of working hard, getting an education, and being good friends and nice people.
I should tell you that Gloria's had a wide-range of experiences. Her grandfather is an Italian immigrant. Her father was held up by a group of black teenagers. None of that excuses her racism; I just thought it would only be fair to Gloria to give you a bit more of her frame of reference. Also, she said a whole lot more. Much of it absent any facts. And a good chunk I didn't read. Sorry.
Now, let me get to the meat of this post. I'll have to share with you my line of thought, if only just to have it here where I could read it. My initial reaction to that last comment is that that's how the overwhelming majority of African Americans conduct ourselves. We don't complain about racism to our white coworkers, neighbors, or friends. We complain at the barber or beauty shop. We complain at church. And it's not the topic of every conversation and we don't think about it every day or even every week or month. But when we do, we don't complain to the white people in our lives.
Then it occurred to me that I hear and read that a lot from white people, that they have black friends who don't complain abour racism and what's wrong with the rest of us. So I'm thinking, maybe black people should complain about racism to the white folks in our lives. Usually we don't because we're already upset and if we have to hear our white "friend" tell us we're probably "over-reacting," we're gonna "pop go the weasel till the weasel go pop!" (That's a shout out to Bernie Mac.) But I'm thinking, maybe we oughtta go ahead and risk it so more white people can understand how frustrated it can be to be judged negatively based on the color of our skin. And don't even go there. The little bit of irritation most white people feel when the learn, or remember, that most black people regard them with suspicion is jelly beans compared to what we go through.
Then I have this sudden, crystallizing thought. I don't think I've ever heard or read a white person say they didn't no any black person to complain about racism. They do the same thing Gloria did: separate black people into good and bad, and decide that it's the opinion of the(ir) good blacks that matters.
Which makes sense on the face of it, right? No one who really wants to know the news goes to Fox for information, cause Fox is bad. If two kids get in a fight, you may ask both what happened; but you only really take the word of the kid known to be good.
But, there's a problem with what Gloria and others like her do: just complaining about racism makes you a bad black person. Go back and look at what she says about the black hostess at the restaurant.Really think about what she says about them. They seem to perform their duties well. It doesn't seem as though she tried to get to know them personally, even though they did reach out to her.
(Huh? Where did I get that from? When we're talking to a white person, we use standard English. We know what white people think if we don't. Even I use standard English with all my white acquaintances. I can only think of 2 white friends I'd use black English with, and we're fairly close friends. So to talk in our vernacular at the workplace to a white co-worker shows so effort, or expectation at least, at comraderie.)
Gloria doesn't really have anything bad to say about them except that they will come to work late and not stay at their posts during busy hours. That's not really bad. I'm sure their were some white co-workers who showed up late and left their posts during busy hours, too. So really, there're only 2 complaints Gloria has with these hostesses: 1) They dare speak black vernacular to her; 2) They assert that the only reason the manager spoke to them the way he did was that they're black. Even notice that. She doesn't say that they complain about being reprimanded at all, just that the manager did them "lak dat" [sic]. So part of what makes them untrustworthy for Gloria and folks of her ilk is their complaining about racism. You can't have a formula where whether or not you trust someone's take on racism depends on whether or not that mention it in your presence. And if you do, it can't be that the ones who don't complain about racism are the ones you listen to. Cause like I said, black folks generally don't complain about racism to our white acquaitances. Though, maybe we should.
Plus, it's not like Oprah and Bill Cosby and President Obama don't acknowledge racism. They do. They just focus on achieving inspite of. So referencing them in your "there's no systemic racism" argument only shows the selectivity with which you listen to black people, in the few ones in positions of power.
So stop saying you know (these certain) black people who don't complain about racism (to you) and so therefore it must not exist. That's just plain ole ign'rant logic.
Don't get me wrong. On one hand, to keep talking about the notion that Sotomayor is racist does lead credence to the lie. On the other, not to talk about the fallacy of logic would be to miss an opportunity to education:Not only are conservatives lying about Judge Sotomayor, they're lying about the current and future status and prospects of white men.
I mean, take Patty B (Pat Buchanan) for example. He's said:
There are a few problems with this statement I think we should break down.
Who decided that half of the great lawyers and judges are white males? Is it really that many? Isn't it racist to assume it's that many without actually knowing?
Let's say it is that many. Does that mean that women and minorities are less likely to make good judges? Or, does that mean that we need more women and minority judges?
And let's say it is that many. Doesn't it mean that white males are over-represented on the Supreme Court? How is that not racist?
Isn't it strange that with all the barriers women and people of color face in this country, the only time conservatives/Republicans really speak out against racism and/or sexism is when they perceive it's happening to white men?
And let's not delude ourselves. This is NOT just a run-of-the-mill conservative attack against Democrats. This is an attack against anti-racism - that's why they're stealing the language of anti-racist activists. This is an attack against racial and gender progress and equality. This is an attempt to maintain white male supremacy in the US.
Don't get me wrong. They know these attacks won't keep Sotomayor off the bench. What it will do is galvanize whites and their lackeys of color against Democrats; against Pres. Obama's next political move; and most especially, against future attempts to ensure equality and justice for all.
They are protecting their positions of power. And that is wrong, I know.
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?
Hey. I'm starting to think I'm on to something. First, I linked this op-ed by Charles M Blow in an update to RorR3, but might as well link it here to. It captures my point nicely.
Sorry I haven't written as prolifically as I had for a few days. I haven't been feeling well. But I've been paying attention to what's going on in our world and am up for any conversation you'd like to have.
But I wanna talk about this whole "nation of cowards" brouhaha. I just watched Dr. Michael Eric Dyson discuss the issue with Pat Buchanan, who I feel is a fervent racist.
I agree with Attorney General Eric Holder that America is a nation of cowards when it comes to race. There is a minority of African Americans who are ashamed of our past. Why, I don't know. And there're also an overwhelming majority of white Americans who are, frankly, delusional about our past. It's hard to find a white person willing to accept the truth.
That's the first thing I want to say. Here's the second: a discussion of race should concern institutional/structural racism. It should concern the interactions between the races, not within them. It should be interracial, as it were, not intraracial.
See. There are some white Americans, like Pat Buchanan, who I feel is a fervent racist, who wanna start talking about things that happen within the black community. They wanna talk about teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births within the black community. "White people aren't responsible for that!" is their argument. Now, there are a number of problems with that argument. First off, in an indirect way, it's wrong. Once you study the numbers, crime, teenage pregnancy, etc and so on, our numbers break down along economic lines and are no worse than white America. Poverty leads to crime and teenage pregnancy. The black community is disproportionately poor. This poverty is historical. Therefore, the issue is has little to do with personal responsibility. With the exception of out-of-wedlock births, our numbers are the same. Oh! There is also the exception of fathers who are not in the home but remain very active in their child(ren)'s life. In that regard, black fathers do better than white fathers. Though, to listen to the shtick about the black community, you'd never know.
I for one refuse to demand more "personal responsibility" of the black community than is demanded by other communities. That's an old racist trick that's been played on "Negroes" since slavery. Enslavement was good for us because it gave is religion, morals, a work ethic, etc and so on. As if in Africa, people just lay about doing nothing all day. After slavery, we were denied the full rights of citizenship because so many of us were illiterate. Slavery, of course, caused that. Every step along the way, white/mainstream America has declared its treatment of African Americans is better than anywhere else and any maltreatment was the fault of African Americans. It's this same line of argument that Pat Buchanan is using and why I feel he's a fervent racist.
What's real funny is that Pat Buchanan, who I feel is a fervent racist, argued that leaders within the black community should stop focusing on what white people are doing to black people and hold the black community accountable for what we're doing to ourselves. I think the argument is empty and demonstrative of race relations in the country in that we do talk about personal responsibility! We talk about it every Sunday at church. News flash: just because you didn't see/hear it, white people, doesn't it mean it didn't happen! I mean my goodness! You're worse than Columbus thinking he "discovered" America, despite the millions of people already living here.
Now. Back to my point. The discussion should concern interaction between the races. The inherent racism in our school systems and curriculum. People like Pat Buchanan, who I feel is a fervent racist, like to argue that white people aren't responsible for the crime within the black community. But he forgets the lack of equal funding for education. The lack of job opporunities. All that is ignored. But another news flash: no job prospects and little education leads to crime.
Take also the income and employment disparity. Are black people responsible for that? How about the fact that on average, African Americans pay more for mortgages - and I'm talking when you hold for income and down payment and loan amount. How about the inequality in the judicial system? From the fact that African Americans are targetted to the fact that the average juror, regardless of race, is predisposed to see black people as more criminal. Less human. Something like a . . . oh, I don't know . . . a chimp.
See, Pat Buchanan, who I feel is a fervent racist, is right in that white people can't control what goes on in the black community. So, to my point, why talk about it? Why talk about the issues within the black community, as though we're the only ones with any issues - I mean, of all the big banking CEOs that went before Congress, I don't remember a black face? That's besides the point. Especially when America is made up of Asians and Latin and other ethnicities. Right?
So. In summary, Eric Holder is right. Pat Buchanan, who I feel is a fervent racist, is wrong. We are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race, but I ain't scared. So bring it on. Pat Buchanan-type racists and all!
Here's what I have to say about Black History Month: Carter G Woodson had a great idea several decades ago. And in the absence of a more inclusive national history, Black History Month remains pivotal. We celebrate "white" history all 12 months, so anyone complaining that there's no White History Month needs to catch a clue. Now, I believe it is important to note that much of black history involves white people, just as much of "white" history involves black people. So, there is some inherent danger in the separate notion of "black" history to the extent that it can engender the idea that black people suffered at the hands of some mysterious force and not the white people with whom they share citizenship and/or this country. But, again, in the absence of a more comprehensive history, I think it necessary to take the risk. Also, I would like to be part of a movement that has the teaching of a more comprehensive history in our schools as its goal. In fact, let me look into that and get back to you. Since I celebrate and discuss black history all year no matter the month, that's about all I'll be saying in regards to Black History Month. Anything else will be along these same lines.
Now. In other news, I just saw Lauren's kids yesterday. They're doing okay. They are scary smart. And I mean that seriously. I saw some of the work they produced in daycare and was frightened. I'm waiting for one of them to explain e=mc2 to me. The youngest, who I'll call Babygirl, sneezed in my face. Luckily, I'm pretty sure that was a regular, "clearing the system" sneeze and not a flu sneeze. The middle child, who I'll call Sasha cause I think both she and the youngest Obama daughter are clowns, did a lot of laughing and giggling. The oldest, who I'll call Smart Pants, insisted on answering "Lauren" when I asked her what my name was. Her older cousins kept telling her "No1KState," so I'm pretty sure Smart Pants kept saying "Lauren" just to be funny. I asked her, "Why are you messing with me?" She just smiled.
And me? I'm good. One of my great-aunts is making me some yum-yums! It's a baked desert with pecans. I'm not a cook, so that's all I can tell you about it. The interesting thing, though, is that she's my maternal grandmother's sister. (Well, this particular great aunt. I have several.) And it occurred to me that while my grandmother had four daughters (Living at least. We know she and Grandpa had a child before they got married who died as a baby or was stillborn. We thought it was a boy, but I saw some other info that it may have been a girl.), only one of them had a daughter by birth - and that daughter of a daughter is me. If we were Amerindians, it would be my son who would become chief. Plus, I don't know, every time I think about that, I feel some added pressure to make good on my grandmother's genes. You know? There is another daughter of a daughter, but she was adopted. And I'm the older of the two of us, anyway. But don't get it twisted, I love her like a sister. Hurt her and I'll cut you.
Lastly, let me thank my new readers. I'll do my best to give you accurate info with some great thinking behind it.
If you've read a good number of my posts, you know I support gay rights, including same-sex marriage or at least some legal approximation. (There is a credible argument to be made that throughout history, even Greek history when philosophers were sleeping with their male protegees, marriage has always and only applied to the covenant between a man and a woman.)
If you've read a good number of my posts, you know I have little respect for the so-called Christians Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. I have referred to them as "gellies" and "fundies." I think they're wrong to focus so much attention on things they have no right to control, like women's bodies and other people's sexuality, while they dismiss and even aggravate the need for racial and economic justice. They ignore the growing prison industrial complex that is ravaging communities and making use of legalized slavery. They ignore our over reliance on the military. They ignore the growing military industrial complex. They ignore the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans who have died in our ill-conceived "war on terror." They can make no credible claim to concern for "life." Not while the vote against S-CHIP and other attempts to make healthcare affordable and accessible. Not while they sit complacently as our schools return to a pre-integration state in the disparity of money spent per child and children in integrated schools end up racially segregated.
Don't get me wrong. I've read Purpose Driven Life. But I'm a much bigger fan of Rachel Maddow than I am of Rick Warren.
Having said that, I wish the gay community would stop with their whining and crying over Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration. They claim that his presence is a slap in the face and a signal that the LGBT community won't have a seat at the table during Barack Obama's administration. But the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who supports gay rights, including gay marriage, is giving the benediction. What does that mean? Does Rick Warren's presence make anything Joseph Lowery represents as far as gay rights null and void? And if so, why? Cause I know you wouldn't be acting as if Lowery's presence means nothing just because Warren is white and Lowery is black. (Of course, I'm being facetious.)
And quit crying about your social status! You're not at the back of the bus; and if you are, you're certainly not their alone. When you move into a community, people don't rush to move out! The property doesn't go down, it goes up! So shut up with you're whining.
You make the same mistake the gellies and fundies make: you act like your issue is the only one that exists. It's not, and you're both wrong. You act like racism and sexism and economic justice no longer exist. You're both wrong. You act like that only people who matter are white people. You act like only the concerns of white people should be addressed. Again, you're both wrong.
And what's more, shut up complaining like Obama owes you something! All he owes you is living up to his campaign promises. He's been doing that. What I find most especially disturbing is this sense that a group of people beyond Obama's choosing is going to control what he does. I mean, really. Do you think that you're supposed to order him around or something? That he's your White House negro? Come on! I've seen this show before. A black person reaches some position of influence and power, and the white people below and around him/her act as though they're still going to tell him/her what to do. I'm sorry. Try as I might, I can't separate the way the LGBT community is carrying on from race.
Not that Rick Warren is great on issues of race. From what I can see, he'd vote against affirmative action. And still, you don't see people of color carrying on like the sky is falling.
For goodness sake people, it's just an invocation! Some of you don't even believe in God. What do you care who gives the invocation?
It's just an invocation! He's not righting a bill for Obama to sign. Obama's not "pandering" to the evangelical community. How can he be when he has someone who supports gay rights doing the benediction? Or am I missing something.
Yeah, I don't think I'm missing anything. Now, I know the entire LGBT community includes people of color. So, I'll admit, it's really the white LGBT community I find aggravating. Just like their pout-fest over Donnie McClurkin, someone they probably had never heard of, singing at a gospel concert aimed at the black community reeked of white privilege, this whole outcry against Rick Warren stinks, too.
Now again. Don't get me wrong. I disagree with Warren's position on proposition 8. Personally, I'm wrestling with whether to understand homosexuality as a sin or not. I certainly understand it is beyond the person's control. If a person is sexually attracted to people of the opposite, I don't know if there's much to gain from "choosing" to be gay. Or, at least, I don't think many if any heterosexuals "chose" to be straight; it just so happens that they are. So, I reject the exclusionary language a lot of professed Christians use.
But, I also reject the apparent exclusionary track the gay community is taking in regards to Rick Warren. I mean really. He's apparently removed the most offensive language from his website. That's as far as you're going to get. I doubt you'll succeed at changing his mind in regards to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. So, stop the pouting about Rick Warren and move on to something more substantive like "don't ask, don't tell."
Sorry if this post seems even less lucid than usual. My head is foggy, and I'm just really fed up.
. . . 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.
Democrats, and now especially Barack Obama, are accused of being "anti-American." Though, the truth is simply that there are many of us, including myself, who believes America needs to start doing better. We're the ones who were for regulation and would've put a stop to the sub-prime lending fraud. We're the ones who want people to a pay check that's worth their work. But, because we see flaws in America, speak about the flaws and try to call attention to these flaws, we're anti-American.
Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, are anti-government. Anti-regulation. Law taxes especially for the rich so the wealth is redistributed up. They're the ones who press for trade laws that short change the American worker, and that has to be anti-American, right?
But anyway, as I intended, a quick question - what's the functional difference between being anti-American and anti-government.
Cause let's start talking honestly. Bill Ayers was anti-war, not anti-American. And the people who died were fellows members of Weathermen Underground.
And right now as I'm listening to Hardball with Chris Matthews, and Chris is there tonight, and as I listen to Pat Buchanan's racism and Katrina vanden Heuvel's thoughtfulness, I lean all the more to the left.
Also, bombing in the name of anti-war and peace and bombing in the name of racial oppression aren't the same thing.
Lastly, the Rev. Wright is not an Afro-racist. He doesn't hate white people. As I've explained before, he and many, many others African Americans hate the system to privileges white Americans to our disadvantage.
And Chris just finally said some truth. Pat had better be careful because his true instincts were coming. If MSNBC knows Pat's a racist, and how can they not? I know he is, they need to fire him.
Two spokesmen for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, on Thursday said the FBI has not contacted the group.
"ACORN has not been notified that we are the target of an investigation by any authorities — nor should we be," spokesman Kevin Whelan said in a statement. "ACORN members have done a good and patriotic thing by helping bring more than a million of their fellow citizens into our democratic process." . . .
ACORN has said the "vast majority" of its workers are conscientious, but some might have turned in duplicate applications or provided fake information to pad their pay. Workers caught submitting false information have been fired, ACORN officials say.
ACORN says laws in a number of states require it to submit all registration cards it collects even dubious ones, so its workers segregate applications with missing, suspicious or false information and flag them so state election officials can quickly check them further. Brian Kettenring, an ACORN spokesman, said its employees flagged questionable registration forms for election officials in 11 states, none of which is investigating the group. He also said he did not believe a 'Mickey Mouse' voter registration card in Orlando, Fla., was submitted by an ACORN worker.
I think Republicans should listen and stop acting like they're the ones who want to protect voters' rights. I mean, after all, some of the US attorney's who were fired were fired for not investigating allegations of voter fraud even though there was no evidence of such fraud.
House Republicans have been pushing for the Justice Department to investigate ACORN, calling on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to make sure ballots by ineligible or fraudulent voters are not counted on Nov. 4.
The issue also became campaign trail fodder for McCain, who on Wednesday night demanded to know the full extent of Obama's ties with ACORN. McCain said the group could be on the verge of "destroying the fabric of democracy."
