Because he is an asshole--is the short answer. But, as Friedersdorf notes, this says more about conservatism than this one misogynistic idiot. Conservatives celebrate this man, no matter what he says. Former Veep Dick Cheney joked about waterboarding with Limbaugh, and conservative organizations give him awards.
Obama called the young woman and told her that her parents should be proud of her. I can only imagine what that meant to her. By contrast, Mitt Romney hasn't said anything, and Santorum dismissed it as Limbaugh being an entertainer.
Sigh.
Adult males, supposedly reared in a religiously moral context can't just call this what it is. I am embarrassed for every conservative who votes for this party--a party so cowed that they can't stand up to this man.
March 2, 2012
Christian Nation: Love it or Leave it
Leaving school this afternoon, I headed through a drive-through for some greasy protein. While waiting for my food, I noticed a SUV parked ahead with a bumper sticker that showed the outline of America, with the letters around the top: "don't love it? LEAVE IT!"
The stupidity of the bumper sticker struck me. I am 99% confident that they were conservatives, and 100% sure that as conservatives, they spend more than a little time "bitching" about things American. I am guessing that they don't like their black President, and they don't like the laws that their black President has signed into law. I am guessing they don't like the programs their government does to help poor people (especially the black ones), nor the programs that back science and technology.
But they don't see their dislike of country as "disliking America." Why? Why could Jerry Falwell blame liberals and gays for 9-11, yet not be accused of "blaming America first."
The answer is why I hate the idea of a Christian nation, because those two in the SUV and Jerry Falwell believe that the country is theirs, and theirs alone. They don't think America belongs to liberals, or to Obama, or to people like us.
There is such an odd and bizarre quality to it too. "This is a Christian nation, and if you don't like it, you should just leave." Can't quite connect that to the Jesus of the Bible, can you? Reminds me of our extended relatives who bragged of going to Town Hall meetings with their Tea Party members. Those, we can all remember, who liked to shout at their representatives. You know, for Jesus.
Two thoughts. One, this image I have posted before, and one that really needs no words.
Second, this great story from Fred at slactivist about a young girl in Rhode Island who protested the posting of a sectarian poster in her school. Leave aside the debate over whether or not she should have protested, or whether or not the school should have allowed it in the first place. Fred addresses that better than I.
The young woman received threats--as you might have anticipated.
The stupidity of the bumper sticker struck me. I am 99% confident that they were conservatives, and 100% sure that as conservatives, they spend more than a little time "bitching" about things American. I am guessing that they don't like their black President, and they don't like the laws that their black President has signed into law. I am guessing they don't like the programs their government does to help poor people (especially the black ones), nor the programs that back science and technology.
But they don't see their dislike of country as "disliking America." Why? Why could Jerry Falwell blame liberals and gays for 9-11, yet not be accused of "blaming America first."
The answer is why I hate the idea of a Christian nation, because those two in the SUV and Jerry Falwell believe that the country is theirs, and theirs alone. They don't think America belongs to liberals, or to Obama, or to people like us.
There is such an odd and bizarre quality to it too. "This is a Christian nation, and if you don't like it, you should just leave." Can't quite connect that to the Jesus of the Bible, can you? Reminds me of our extended relatives who bragged of going to Town Hall meetings with their Tea Party members. Those, we can all remember, who liked to shout at their representatives. You know, for Jesus.
Two thoughts. One, this image I have posted before, and one that really needs no words.
Second, this great story from Fred at slactivist about a young girl in Rhode Island who protested the posting of a sectarian poster in her school. Leave aside the debate over whether or not she should have protested, or whether or not the school should have allowed it in the first place. Fred addresses that better than I.
The young woman received threats--as you might have anticipated.
My friend Anglican has often wryly asked those who claim us as a Christian nation, "so how Christian have we acted." It is a good question. But one that is lost, I think, on people who believe in the "love it or leave it" America.That’s a tribal response. It shows that, for these angry Cranston residents, this “school prayer” was no longer a prayer at all, but a tribal symbol, a tribal battle flag.A prayer that included an appeal for divine help “to be kind” ceased to have anything to do with either kindness or prayer once it became an established, state-sanctioned symbol of privilege for a particular sect. Whatever that sect may have been about originally, its establishment as the official, privileged sect of Cranston turned it into something else — into the same thing that every privileged sect becomes.This is what happens when religion is established and made official. This is what always happens when religion is established and made official. The privileges that arise from being the official, established sect become the entire substance of that sect. The defense of that privilege replaces every other purpose, meaning or reason for existence until it is all that is left.
February 27, 2012
Religious liberty--what a radical idea
Always nice when history shows up in a thoughtful way. No, not Santorum--or hell, any of the GOP talking about religion and history. But this nice piece on a new Roger Williams and his radical idea of religious liberty. Reminds me of the good old days, when people talked about ideas and history.
This was actually nice for me, and I am not being sarcastic. I remember well learning from other Baptists about the connection to people like Roger Williams. That came from another time, of course, when separation of church and state was not considered some "liberal" lie, but was something of which to be proud.
I also like the debunking of the Puritans seeking "religious freedom," and that is a point I try to make to students when the issue arises. Puritans believed that freedom meant having the right to follow God--as they defined it, and that certainly sounds like Rick Santorum, as well as much of the GOP base.
Where my pleasant memory fades, however, is when I recall the brutal conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. While I didn't know much about it when I lived in Colorado, my time in Houston included time in both a fundy church and one of the last remaining moderate congregations in the area. We watched as conservatives led by Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler gutted the SBC of thinkers and moderates. Anyone who questioned inerrancy had to go.
Sullivan reminded me of that with this brief post on the same process in the GOP. When I was young, like the SBC, a moderate Republican was not rare. Unfortunately, those days are long gone. I have to say that both the SBC and the GOP are worse for all of that. The emphasis on purity and dogma has robbed the country of one of the rich denominations that traced back to people like Roger Williams, and has turned the "party of Lincoln" into a freak show.
This was actually nice for me, and I am not being sarcastic. I remember well learning from other Baptists about the connection to people like Roger Williams. That came from another time, of course, when separation of church and state was not considered some "liberal" lie, but was something of which to be proud.
I also like the debunking of the Puritans seeking "religious freedom," and that is a point I try to make to students when the issue arises. Puritans believed that freedom meant having the right to follow God--as they defined it, and that certainly sounds like Rick Santorum, as well as much of the GOP base.
Where my pleasant memory fades, however, is when I recall the brutal conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. While I didn't know much about it when I lived in Colorado, my time in Houston included time in both a fundy church and one of the last remaining moderate congregations in the area. We watched as conservatives led by Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler gutted the SBC of thinkers and moderates. Anyone who questioned inerrancy had to go.
Sullivan reminded me of that with this brief post on the same process in the GOP. When I was young, like the SBC, a moderate Republican was not rare. Unfortunately, those days are long gone. I have to say that both the SBC and the GOP are worse for all of that. The emphasis on purity and dogma has robbed the country of one of the rich denominations that traced back to people like Roger Williams, and has turned the "party of Lincoln" into a freak show.
February 23, 2012
Open letter to Franklin Graham
Dear Mr. Graham,
You need to fire your staff, and need to do so immediately. If your staff didn't immediately confront you when you left the Morning Joe set--you remember, after you again suggested that Obama was Muslim--and tell you, "sir, with all due respect, that was both stupid and immoral," then you need to fire them. All.
I say that knowing that no single staffer is in danger after your words. Because you have done this before. And you need to stop. But I am as sure that you won't. You are not what your father was. No, you are a political hack, and a stupid one at that.
Make no mistake. I never thought your father was an intellectual. I found his theology simplistic and superficial. But he understood a few things that he clearly didn't pass on to you. He understood that politically, it was unwise to divide his target audience into political camps--not if he wanted to be able to speak to both. And at a moral level, I think he understood that whatever Christianity represents, it is supposed to be a welcoming faith. Your father learned those lessons the hard way after he revealed a conversation with President Truman, though he didn't actually learn his lesson until he learned of Watergate and Nixon's true character.
You could know this, of course. Not only are you your father's chosen successor, but his biography is well known. In fact, your father said last year that he wished he had stayed out of politics. Perhaps you don't read. I don't know. Perhaps you are just unintelligent. That seems more likely.
I do know that while your father is hardly an intellectual giant, next to you he looks smarter every day. I am sorry. I don't mean to insult, but you revealed your stupidity when you dabbled with the "birther" controversy. Only idiots think the President wasn't born in Hawaii. You embarassed every person of faith that day, and have done little to remedy the situation. Because you aren't just dumb, you are also a bigoted political hack. When you said that you were more confident of Santorum's Christianity because of his "values," you revealed that your Conservative leanings are much stronger than anything approaching Christianity.
You really need to shut up. Seriously. Read that damn Bible from which you claim to preach. Check what it says about lying about others. See what it says about how to treat your adversaries.
Read some books. Hell, read some books about your father. But shut the hell up. For your own good. Please.
Thank you,
Streak
You need to fire your staff, and need to do so immediately. If your staff didn't immediately confront you when you left the Morning Joe set--you remember, after you again suggested that Obama was Muslim--and tell you, "sir, with all due respect, that was both stupid and immoral," then you need to fire them. All.
I say that knowing that no single staffer is in danger after your words. Because you have done this before. And you need to stop. But I am as sure that you won't. You are not what your father was. No, you are a political hack, and a stupid one at that.
Make no mistake. I never thought your father was an intellectual. I found his theology simplistic and superficial. But he understood a few things that he clearly didn't pass on to you. He understood that politically, it was unwise to divide his target audience into political camps--not if he wanted to be able to speak to both. And at a moral level, I think he understood that whatever Christianity represents, it is supposed to be a welcoming faith. Your father learned those lessons the hard way after he revealed a conversation with President Truman, though he didn't actually learn his lesson until he learned of Watergate and Nixon's true character.
You could know this, of course. Not only are you your father's chosen successor, but his biography is well known. In fact, your father said last year that he wished he had stayed out of politics. Perhaps you don't read. I don't know. Perhaps you are just unintelligent. That seems more likely.
I do know that while your father is hardly an intellectual giant, next to you he looks smarter every day. I am sorry. I don't mean to insult, but you revealed your stupidity when you dabbled with the "birther" controversy. Only idiots think the President wasn't born in Hawaii. You embarassed every person of faith that day, and have done little to remedy the situation. Because you aren't just dumb, you are also a bigoted political hack. When you said that you were more confident of Santorum's Christianity because of his "values," you revealed that your Conservative leanings are much stronger than anything approaching Christianity.
You really need to shut up. Seriously. Read that damn Bible from which you claim to preach. Check what it says about lying about others. See what it says about how to treat your adversaries.
Read some books. Hell, read some books about your father. But shut the hell up. For your own good. Please.
Thank you,
Streak
February 20, 2012
Legal or not, abortion rates similar
Interesting study on abortion laws. Suggests that globally the rate is relatively constant regardless of if it is legal or not. But they also suggest that when it is illegal, the danger for women goes up.
Which is why I hate the pro-life tactic of attacking the women, but not trying to address the other issues. Access to good healthcare, contraceptives and reducing poverty will do more for everyone involved. Certainly more than these "personhood" bills.
Which is why I hate the pro-life tactic of attacking the women, but not trying to address the other issues. Access to good healthcare, contraceptives and reducing poverty will do more for everyone involved. Certainly more than these "personhood" bills.
Christians and fake oppression--birth control edition
Fred Clark is on a roll, and my blog is in danger of becoming a "hey, look what Slactivist wrote again this week" type of place.
Anyway, in this edition, he points to the ridiculous example of Rick Warren vowing to go to jail rather than provide health coverage for women. Or something like that. Except, as Fred and others note, no one is asking him to either go to jail or provide those nasty contraceptives to women. Churches get an out. Oh, and California has had the same law for the last 13 years.
Oh, Evangelical Mind? Where the hell are you?
Jon Stewart's clip on the contraceptive wars had a lot of the same posturing bullshit, including the embarrassing Richard Land, who compared this ruling on contraceptives to the beginning of Hitler's reign. You know, "when they came for the Commies, I did nothing, because I was not a godless Commie?" Because requiring people of faith to take care of women's health is exactly what Hitler did.
Richard Land makes me embarrassed that I ever called myself a Baptist, and all of these men embarrass me for not recognizing a few key issues here: A) that the contraceptive rule has been on the books since 2001 (when whatsisname was declaring war on Christianity) and B) that their prophetic role (however they understand that) is not to be political shills.
But these people are all conservatives first and foremost, and Christians, eh, third or fourth. Have to throw "male" in there somewhere, and "jackass" somewhere. As Natalie Burris tweeted, "in actual fact they are the heirs--precisely--of the white clergymen who were standing in the way of human rights."
Let's see if we can count this up. Conservative Christians don't mind torture (that is understandable--after all, remember the fear we felt on 9-11), don't mind cuts for the disabled poor (we sadly just can't afford to help everyone), but are opposed to extending contraceptive and screening help to women. Oh, they will mandate that same woman take her rapists baby to term, but they won't have their tax money pay for her pre-natal exams, nor the baby's nutrition or shots. "Just let me know when that little bastard needs a prison term. I will pay taxes for that--well, not actually pay taxes, all taxes are evil--but I won't complain when my government builds them or privatizes them at more cost to the state."
They openly cheered Bush's invasion of Iraq and are now cheering for the next war. They sit silently or passively while white racism is on the rise, and have really nothing to say about inequality--well, in the oddest damn little Marxist way--when they say that God isn't concerned (really) with their physical deprivation, only that their "relationship" with God is sound.
Wow.
Anyway, in this edition, he points to the ridiculous example of Rick Warren vowing to go to jail rather than provide health coverage for women. Or something like that. Except, as Fred and others note, no one is asking him to either go to jail or provide those nasty contraceptives to women. Churches get an out. Oh, and California has had the same law for the last 13 years.
Oh, Evangelical Mind? Where the hell are you?
Jon Stewart's clip on the contraceptive wars had a lot of the same posturing bullshit, including the embarrassing Richard Land, who compared this ruling on contraceptives to the beginning of Hitler's reign. You know, "when they came for the Commies, I did nothing, because I was not a godless Commie?" Because requiring people of faith to take care of women's health is exactly what Hitler did.
Richard Land makes me embarrassed that I ever called myself a Baptist, and all of these men embarrass me for not recognizing a few key issues here: A) that the contraceptive rule has been on the books since 2001 (when whatsisname was declaring war on Christianity) and B) that their prophetic role (however they understand that) is not to be political shills.
But these people are all conservatives first and foremost, and Christians, eh, third or fourth. Have to throw "male" in there somewhere, and "jackass" somewhere. As Natalie Burris tweeted, "in actual fact they are the heirs--precisely--of the white clergymen who were standing in the way of human rights."
Let's see if we can count this up. Conservative Christians don't mind torture (that is understandable--after all, remember the fear we felt on 9-11), don't mind cuts for the disabled poor (we sadly just can't afford to help everyone), but are opposed to extending contraceptive and screening help to women. Oh, they will mandate that same woman take her rapists baby to term, but they won't have their tax money pay for her pre-natal exams, nor the baby's nutrition or shots. "Just let me know when that little bastard needs a prison term. I will pay taxes for that--well, not actually pay taxes, all taxes are evil--but I won't complain when my government builds them or privatizes them at more cost to the state."
They openly cheered Bush's invasion of Iraq and are now cheering for the next war. They sit silently or passively while white racism is on the rise, and have really nothing to say about inequality--well, in the oddest damn little Marxist way--when they say that God isn't concerned (really) with their physical deprivation, only that their "relationship" with God is sound.
Wow.
February 19, 2012
Evangelicals and "life begins at conception." Yeah, not so much.
slacktivist: The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal
This is a must read, and yet another example of what Mark Noll called the Scandal of the Evangelical mind. This is what happens when you don't value the mind, or value a historical understanding of your own intellectual process. In this case, you miss that just 30 years ago, Evangelicals openly rejected the idea that life began at conception.
This is a must read, and yet another example of what Mark Noll called the Scandal of the Evangelical mind. This is what happens when you don't value the mind, or value a historical understanding of your own intellectual process. In this case, you miss that just 30 years ago, Evangelicals openly rejected the idea that life began at conception.
February 18, 2012
Abortion wars, continued
This week the Oklahoma Senate passed one of those "Personhood" bills. It passed with overwhelming support even though it has no out for rape or incest, (nor ectopic pregnancy) and was opposed by medical professionals. And, as Sarah Morice-Brubaker reports, the bill writers don't even intend to enforce the law in those troubling areas, but wanted to pass a universally pro-life bill as a "symbol." The bill has created quite a response among the liberal community, and among women who are not normally political--at least in my circle. Many are concerned that this bill will ban certain contraceptives, as well as in vitro fertilization.
I have been thinking about Leighton's comment on my most recent abortion post where he countered my "reluctant pro-choice" in typical elegant and thoughtful prose. My reluctance on the matter has always been out of some respect for the people around me who feel so strongly that abortion is taking a life. But those concerns have usually been couched in some kind of complex worldview where contraceptives were rational and we talked about things like viability or consciousness.
But this personhood nonsense and the previous attack on contraceptives has made me far less reluctant. One of my facebook friends was so reflexively defensive of this clearly idiotic measure--well, it just pushed me over the edge. As I noted on FB, if you oppose contraceptive services, good sex ed, healthcare for women and nutrition and vaccination services for infants? You aren't pro-life. You are anti-sex, perhaps, or certainly are dismissive toward women. The same Facebook friend who defended this personhood bill as a defense of God's infallible decisions, defended cuts for disabled children over tax cuts for the rich. There is nothing pro-life about this stance.
Leighton wonders "if the conservative stance on abortion is partly (mis)informed by its inability to comprehend the effect of collective systemic actions through its lens of everything reducing to personal, individual responsibility." I think that is certainly part of it. I am struck by so many conservatives (certainly not all) who seem incapable of walking out the consequences of an action or law. I see this in the death penalty where people who would never openly approve of executing someone who was innocent--but who have essentially stopped processing the morality of capital punishment after some theoretical "eye for an eye," and have never added racial or class bias to the mix, nor the DNA evidence that shows the flaws in the system. Likewise, they look at supply side economics, and just assume it should work. Forget evidence that it doesn't. The decision has already been made.
My facebook friend stopped after assuming that this personhood bill was "pro-life." That is good enough for him, even if it causes great harm to women, and even if the same people passing this bill will cut programs that help pregnant moms, infants, and children. There is no follow through. And despite the assurance that this bill was aimed to "save lives," it will kill people. Real people. People who have kids, or siblings, and who are absolutely and clearly conscious and among us. As Leighton also posted, everyone should read this story of a woman who nearly died because doctors wouldn't perform an abortion.
I have been thinking about Leighton's comment on my most recent abortion post where he countered my "reluctant pro-choice" in typical elegant and thoughtful prose. My reluctance on the matter has always been out of some respect for the people around me who feel so strongly that abortion is taking a life. But those concerns have usually been couched in some kind of complex worldview where contraceptives were rational and we talked about things like viability or consciousness.
But this personhood nonsense and the previous attack on contraceptives has made me far less reluctant. One of my facebook friends was so reflexively defensive of this clearly idiotic measure--well, it just pushed me over the edge. As I noted on FB, if you oppose contraceptive services, good sex ed, healthcare for women and nutrition and vaccination services for infants? You aren't pro-life. You are anti-sex, perhaps, or certainly are dismissive toward women. The same Facebook friend who defended this personhood bill as a defense of God's infallible decisions, defended cuts for disabled children over tax cuts for the rich. There is nothing pro-life about this stance.
Leighton wonders "if the conservative stance on abortion is partly (mis)informed by its inability to comprehend the effect of collective systemic actions through its lens of everything reducing to personal, individual responsibility." I think that is certainly part of it. I am struck by so many conservatives (certainly not all) who seem incapable of walking out the consequences of an action or law. I see this in the death penalty where people who would never openly approve of executing someone who was innocent--but who have essentially stopped processing the morality of capital punishment after some theoretical "eye for an eye," and have never added racial or class bias to the mix, nor the DNA evidence that shows the flaws in the system. Likewise, they look at supply side economics, and just assume it should work. Forget evidence that it doesn't. The decision has already been made.
My facebook friend stopped after assuming that this personhood bill was "pro-life." That is good enough for him, even if it causes great harm to women, and even if the same people passing this bill will cut programs that help pregnant moms, infants, and children. There is no follow through. And despite the assurance that this bill was aimed to "save lives," it will kill people. Real people. People who have kids, or siblings, and who are absolutely and clearly conscious and among us. As Leighton also posted, everyone should read this story of a woman who nearly died because doctors wouldn't perform an abortion.
February 11, 2012
Kathleen Edwards
Last year's music scene was incredible. I had about 18 top albums that were (and are) solid musical efforts. Enough that I look at this year with a bit of skepticism. Not sure who else I like can release new music.
But my first new album of the year is rock solid. Kathleen Edwards has been one of my favorites since her first album (Failer) and her new one (Voyageur) shows her maturing into a first-rate songwriter. There are several amazing songs on this album, but here are a couple of great live versions. First, she joins with Sarah Harmer (another great voice) in House full of Empty Rooms
And this may be my favorite song--Soft Place to Land. Just gorgeous.
But my first new album of the year is rock solid. Kathleen Edwards has been one of my favorites since her first album (Failer) and her new one (Voyageur) shows her maturing into a first-rate songwriter. There are several amazing songs on this album, but here are a couple of great live versions. First, she joins with Sarah Harmer (another great voice) in House full of Empty Rooms
And this may be my favorite song--Soft Place to Land. Just gorgeous.
February 7, 2012
Ugh, abortion wars
I have said here many times that I am one of the most uncomfortable pro-choice people out there. But I will say that the Republican and evangelical attacks on women are making me more pro-choice, not less.
Let's start with the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco, where a right wing Tea Party Republican led the effort to cut funding to PP. Not only was this blatantly an attempt to make everything political and charged, but it was, from my perspective, throwing women's health under the bus for a political attack on Planned Parenthood. All I heard out of that was "I don't really care if women get access to healthcare, contraceptives, screenings, etc--I just want to stop abortions."
Which would be one thing, but at the same time, Republicans are cutting programs that help poor kids and infants, and are attacking the very safety net that has helped parents with young children. Pro-life? Not sure about that.
Then I read this morning that Oklahoma Christian Republicans are pushing for a "personhood" amendment, and Kansas is pushing for extreme legislation that would require that women be told (falsely) that abortion can cause breast cancer; allow doctors to lie to patients, and other draconian measures.
Again, while cutting funding for poor people. And making it harder to get contraceptives. At a certain point, this isn't anti-abortion, or pro-life, it is against women having sex outside planned procreation.
Add that to attempts by conservative evangelicals to allow students to bully gay kids as long as it comes from their religious belief, and the very continued reality that every Republican will be voting for a torture defender this coming fall--and I am having a harder and harder time respecting anything conservative.
Let's start with the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco, where a right wing Tea Party Republican led the effort to cut funding to PP. Not only was this blatantly an attempt to make everything political and charged, but it was, from my perspective, throwing women's health under the bus for a political attack on Planned Parenthood. All I heard out of that was "I don't really care if women get access to healthcare, contraceptives, screenings, etc--I just want to stop abortions."
Which would be one thing, but at the same time, Republicans are cutting programs that help poor kids and infants, and are attacking the very safety net that has helped parents with young children. Pro-life? Not sure about that.
Then I read this morning that Oklahoma Christian Republicans are pushing for a "personhood" amendment, and Kansas is pushing for extreme legislation that would require that women be told (falsely) that abortion can cause breast cancer; allow doctors to lie to patients, and other draconian measures.
Again, while cutting funding for poor people. And making it harder to get contraceptives. At a certain point, this isn't anti-abortion, or pro-life, it is against women having sex outside planned procreation.
Add that to attempts by conservative evangelicals to allow students to bully gay kids as long as it comes from their religious belief, and the very continued reality that every Republican will be voting for a torture defender this coming fall--and I am having a harder and harder time respecting anything conservative.
February 6, 2012
Obama and race--the Jan Brewer edition
This is old news now, but Jan Brewer's finger wag still bugs me. As does Newt Gingrich's "food stamp President" line. In fact, I think Republicans have returned to racism to attempt to win this year. Good god, they have a horrible record on this going back to Nixon, but it is still sad to see. I don't know if Gingrich is actually a racist, but his willingness to use racial code words makes him, in many ways, worse.
As for Brewer, she reminds me of the aphorism that we have no racists in America any longer. I have friends like her. Their racism is there, but they don't even know, or acknowledge it. After all, no one wants to call themselves a racist, so it is easier to convince yourself that your stereotypical view of people of color has nothing to do with race. And if you know little of history, perhaps you really don't know that the "angry black" man or woman is deeply encoded in our history, or that the "lazy black" person goes back to Reconstruction and the South's open rejection of black equality.
I would find this sad, but the consequences are so severe. Republicans seem hell bent on making racism acceptable again--all to win elections.
As for Brewer, she reminds me of the aphorism that we have no racists in America any longer. I have friends like her. Their racism is there, but they don't even know, or acknowledge it. After all, no one wants to call themselves a racist, so it is easier to convince yourself that your stereotypical view of people of color has nothing to do with race. And if you know little of history, perhaps you really don't know that the "angry black" man or woman is deeply encoded in our history, or that the "lazy black" person goes back to Reconstruction and the South's open rejection of black equality.
I would find this sad, but the consequences are so severe. Republicans seem hell bent on making racism acceptable again--all to win elections.
February 2, 2012
What Obama means for race
I started to rant about this, but think the picture tells it all. This little boy, btw, wanted to know if the President's hair "felt like his."
Awesome.
February 1, 2012
Obama X
I don't know if any of you have seen the Bill Maher "New Rules" bit from last week, but it actually relates to our conversation about moral authority, and the late Internet Monk's comments about conservatives listening more to Limbaugh and Fox than thinking about their faith. You can watch Maher below (f bomb warning), as long as it plays in my template and that HBO has not yanked it. (If that happens, you can read some of the transcript here).
In this case, Maher is talking about Newt Gingrich's common tactic of invoking Saul Alinsky to somehow disparage Obama and liberals. Alinsky, as it turns out, was a community organizer who tried to get African Americans and poor people to actually push for political change. But in Gingrich's world, there is something nefarious about "community organizing" (and I wish I had some money for each time a conservative has thrown that at me online).
But Maher's bigger point was that conservatives have created a bogey man in Obama that is constructed out of nearly whole cloth. As Steve noted in one of the recent comments, there are things to be concerned about with Obama on rendition and detention, but conservatives don't complain about those. They like them, in fact, but they don't give Obama credit for that. Instead, he is soft on defense, anti-business, wants to take your guns away, and doesn't actually like America. Or, as Maher notes, he is supposedly anti-work, while Republicans love it.
That hit home after several of my recent talks with conservatives. Almost word for word, they said that Obama was soft on defense, anti-gun rights, and anti-American. He has raised our taxes (not true) and wants a huge government (government employment is down, which is part of our economic crisis), and wants to read terrorists their rights. Yeah, whatever.
The bubble is pretty striking. And disheartening that people who claim to read the Bible, pray, and attend church regularly have such little regard for the truth. I shouldn't be surprised, I understand. But I still am.
(NPR also did a story on Alinsky, and even noted that Gingrich used an Alinsky tactic in his debate the other day. Irony.)
In this case, Maher is talking about Newt Gingrich's common tactic of invoking Saul Alinsky to somehow disparage Obama and liberals. Alinsky, as it turns out, was a community organizer who tried to get African Americans and poor people to actually push for political change. But in Gingrich's world, there is something nefarious about "community organizing" (and I wish I had some money for each time a conservative has thrown that at me online).
But Maher's bigger point was that conservatives have created a bogey man in Obama that is constructed out of nearly whole cloth. As Steve noted in one of the recent comments, there are things to be concerned about with Obama on rendition and detention, but conservatives don't complain about those. They like them, in fact, but they don't give Obama credit for that. Instead, he is soft on defense, anti-business, wants to take your guns away, and doesn't actually like America. Or, as Maher notes, he is supposedly anti-work, while Republicans love it.
That hit home after several of my recent talks with conservatives. Almost word for word, they said that Obama was soft on defense, anti-gun rights, and anti-American. He has raised our taxes (not true) and wants a huge government (government employment is down, which is part of our economic crisis), and wants to read terrorists their rights. Yeah, whatever.
The bubble is pretty striking. And disheartening that people who claim to read the Bible, pray, and attend church regularly have such little regard for the truth. I shouldn't be surprised, I understand. But I still am.
(NPR also did a story on Alinsky, and even noted that Gingrich used an Alinsky tactic in his debate the other day. Irony.)
January 31, 2012
My Twitter feed
I decided to give the twitter name of Streak over to my new friend Aleem Mawani and their company, streak.com. Twitter actually doesn't allow the sale of nicknames or aliases, and more importantly, I realized two things: 1) that twitter feed isn't actually my Streak, and 2) I can't sell him.
Here at the blog, I will always be Streak. But on twitter, I will be available at a name that early blog readers will remember--@streaksfriend
Here at the blog, I will always be Streak. But on twitter, I will be available at a name that early blog readers will remember--@streaksfriend
January 28, 2012
Moral authority
I have argued for sometime that the modern conservative evangelical church has a very flawed approach to moral questions. As I have noted to my conservative friends, if 60% of my students fail, the issue is systemic, not individual. Doesn't mean that some of those students also failed individually, but the numbers dictate that I reevaluate both how I communicate the information and how I design the exam.
Likewise, if only 10% of evangelicals supported evil like torture or racism, I would chalk that up to the individual. But 60%? Something stinks.
In that vein, Greg has a great post on moral authority, and, in this case, Mark Driscoll's latest book on true marriage. I have no interest reading that particular book, but like how Greg connects Driscoll's parsing to this issue of moral authority. And I especially like how he explains how people who say they look to God exclusively as their moral authority are probably not being completely honest.
Likewise, if only 10% of evangelicals supported evil like torture or racism, I would chalk that up to the individual. But 60%? Something stinks.
In that vein, Greg has a great post on moral authority, and, in this case, Mark Driscoll's latest book on true marriage. I have no interest reading that particular book, but like how Greg connects Driscoll's parsing to this issue of moral authority. And I especially like how he explains how people who say they look to God exclusively as their moral authority are probably not being completely honest.
When people say God is their moral authority, I'm absolutely certain they don't understand what they're saying. First, God is not immediately available to talk to them, and as for those (like one student) who said a relationship with Jesus was key to understanding the Bible, I simply ask why you have so many denominations and traditions if that relationship steers you the right direction. It's simply a way of avoiding the dilemma. God is not your authority because God is not telling you what to do. A book is. The authority people believe is resident in God is mediated through a text, and that text must be interpreted; God, over against Elijah's assertions, is not readily available to answer questions. That leaves a community, or in most cases, an individual to ascertain which portions of the Bible function as moral authority. All this to say, if an individual is making the assessment about particular texts, then the locus of moral authority is the individual's conscience and desires, not God and not the text.Evangelical churches (from what I hear, and probably not just evangelical churches, btw) have decided to not engage on many of today's moral issues. In the case of some of my friends, they see those moral issues as too political, or as too liberal. Can't really talk about environmental issues because it is simply too easy to become too liberal. And as Tony found out, talking about torture critically could also result in being tagged a liberal.
As Greg notes, moral authority is a difficult thing. It takes, I think, a community of people engaging on these issues. Otherwise, it is left up to individual desire and bias. That Pew poll on torture revealed exactly that, by the way. Those evangelicals who supported torture said that they based it largely on sources other than the Bible or their faith. When they were asked, as a part of the poll, in a mini act of accountability, to view torture through their faith, support went down.
If you leave race issues up to South Carolina's evangelicals--on their own--they will respond to Newt Gingrich's dog whistle campaign with great approval. They are not being asked to really confront that kind of hatred. If you leave torture questions to the average conservative evangelical, you will find that their conservative part outweighs their Christian part.
January 18, 2012
First World Jesus
I have been thinking a lot about economics lately. It is very hard for me to see our current economic situation and not think about it in moral terms. Yet, when I talk to many evangelicals, I don't get the sense that they see it that way.
I had a great conversation with a good friend of mine. My friend is not one of those Republicans either. He does a lot to help people in our community. I respect him a lot and so was very surprised when he told me that the story of the young ruler in the Gospels isn't really about wealth, but about anything that might get in the way of God. I can see that last part, but it is very hard for me to read any of the NT and not see a world where vast inequality simply doesn't fit. Where the first shall be last, and where Jesus calls on people with to give their wealth or proceeds to those without. Yet, I have heard from several evangelicals that God is not that concerned with poverty, per se, but only with the hearts of those involved.
Not only is that what Marx suggested about capitalism and religion, but it is, perhaps, a necessity for American Christians of all stripes. Capitalism as amoral economic system doesn't care if profits come from kids, or from crack cocaine. Capitalism doesn't care if the worker loses their arm. It certainly doesn't care if people lose their homes or livelihoods.
Not only that, but capitalism uses all of our weaknesses to an advantage. Greed fuels economic growth, because, like sharks, capitalists never have enough. Capitalism preys on our desires and commands us to covet. It is the complete opposite of the idea of having enough.
Capitalism also requires a steady pool of underpaid workers. When wages grew too high here in the states, we started exporting those jobs to places where minimum wage doesn't even exist. Same for environmental or safety controls. We all know that, and we all participate in that.
But if Jesus, like most American Christians, sees all of that as some separate economic system where Christianity doesn't apply, and where their only big concern should be to bring those poor workers Bibles rather than good paying jobs or clean water--we have constructed a First World Jesus. Here, the main concerns for Christians is quiet prayer and bible reading. It is to memorize parts of the Bible--simply, as far as I can tell to memorize parts of the Bible. It is to parse words for their Greek or Aramaic root. It is where you peruse mega Bible stores where you can purchase just about anything with a Bible verse engraved.
It is a world where that child laborer doesn't exist--nor that environmental and resource exploitation, or dangerous work environment. Transpose that to the states (where many of those issues also exist, unfortunately) and massive inequality exists, but is not a moral issue. It just is. Economics are largely peripheral and theoretical. The growing number of poor is an economic, not moral issue, and the only question is whether those poor people are right with God. In that context, tax cuts for the rich are an abstraction, just as are cuts to the poor.
And we won't even talk about where those jeans or shoes or iPads are manufactured.
I had a great conversation with a good friend of mine. My friend is not one of those Republicans either. He does a lot to help people in our community. I respect him a lot and so was very surprised when he told me that the story of the young ruler in the Gospels isn't really about wealth, but about anything that might get in the way of God. I can see that last part, but it is very hard for me to read any of the NT and not see a world where vast inequality simply doesn't fit. Where the first shall be last, and where Jesus calls on people with to give their wealth or proceeds to those without. Yet, I have heard from several evangelicals that God is not that concerned with poverty, per se, but only with the hearts of those involved.
Not only is that what Marx suggested about capitalism and religion, but it is, perhaps, a necessity for American Christians of all stripes. Capitalism as amoral economic system doesn't care if profits come from kids, or from crack cocaine. Capitalism doesn't care if the worker loses their arm. It certainly doesn't care if people lose their homes or livelihoods.
Not only that, but capitalism uses all of our weaknesses to an advantage. Greed fuels economic growth, because, like sharks, capitalists never have enough. Capitalism preys on our desires and commands us to covet. It is the complete opposite of the idea of having enough.
Capitalism also requires a steady pool of underpaid workers. When wages grew too high here in the states, we started exporting those jobs to places where minimum wage doesn't even exist. Same for environmental or safety controls. We all know that, and we all participate in that.
But if Jesus, like most American Christians, sees all of that as some separate economic system where Christianity doesn't apply, and where their only big concern should be to bring those poor workers Bibles rather than good paying jobs or clean water--we have constructed a First World Jesus. Here, the main concerns for Christians is quiet prayer and bible reading. It is to memorize parts of the Bible--simply, as far as I can tell to memorize parts of the Bible. It is to parse words for their Greek or Aramaic root. It is where you peruse mega Bible stores where you can purchase just about anything with a Bible verse engraved.
It is a world where that child laborer doesn't exist--nor that environmental and resource exploitation, or dangerous work environment. Transpose that to the states (where many of those issues also exist, unfortunately) and massive inequality exists, but is not a moral issue. It just is. Economics are largely peripheral and theoretical. The growing number of poor is an economic, not moral issue, and the only question is whether those poor people are right with God. In that context, tax cuts for the rich are an abstraction, just as are cuts to the poor.
And we won't even talk about where those jeans or shoes or iPads are manufactured.
January 7, 2012
My twitter name "Streak"
I never really anticipated this, but I have been contacted by someone who is part of a company that uses that name. They would like to have the handle "Streak" for their twitter feed.
I don't know what to do here. As everyone knows here, that name is pretty near and dear to us. I would welcome your thoughts.
January 3, 2012
Santorum reiterates two GOP talking points
So Rick Santorum was caught talking about black people and Medicaid. Here is his non explanation, really. But watch his answer. Very little ambiguity about the fact that he said that he didn't want black people getting welfare. As if, as I suspect most conservatives think, black people are the majority of welfare users.
It also reiterates my basic assumption that when people bitch about government spending, they imagine it going to poor black people.
But there is this other part--and one that I have heard over and over--that Democrats push these welfare programs to keep poor people dependent on government, and so continuing to give their votes to Democrats.
My understanding (and this might be just a false assumption, mind you) is that the poor don't vote in big numbers, and when they do, they are hardly a Democratic stronghold.
If this is some liberal plot to keep poor people voting for Democrats in order to keep them in power? It is a really bad and ineffective plot.
It also reiterates my basic assumption that when people bitch about government spending, they imagine it going to poor black people.
But there is this other part--and one that I have heard over and over--that Democrats push these welfare programs to keep poor people dependent on government, and so continuing to give their votes to Democrats.
My understanding (and this might be just a false assumption, mind you) is that the poor don't vote in big numbers, and when they do, they are hardly a Democratic stronghold.
If this is some liberal plot to keep poor people voting for Democrats in order to keep them in power? It is a really bad and ineffective plot.
January 2, 2012
The appeal of libertarianism?
It really confuses me, and I suspect there are a few here who see more benefit from libertarian thought than I do. I tend to agree with this Kos diary. I can see no way that a truly small government works. At least with any kind of complex economy and with an assumption that a middle class is a positive thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)